The addition of a word to an existing mark may not be sufficient to avoid infringement if the essential feature or leading characteristic of the mark remains the same.

RAGHAVAN, J. :- The above appeal arises out of application No. 212575 in cl. 34 made by the appellant for registration of "Radha's Sri Andal" snuff manufactured by them. The said trade mark was advertised in Trade Marks Journal dated 1-9-1963 and the first respondent, who is trading under the name and style of 'Sri Ambal snuff' opposed the registration. The grounds of opposition are :-

(1) For the last over half a century, they have been regularly and in the course of trade using in connection with snuff of their manufacture trade marks containing the expression 'Sri Ambal Snuff' with or without certain devices.

(2) That their marks had been registered under Nos. 89995, 126808 and 146291.

(3) That by long and extensive user the abovesaid marks have come to and denote to the trade and the public that snuff bearing those marks is their merchandise.

(4) That they are interested in preventing the use or registration of any trade mark which was calculated to pass off as and for their well knows 'Sri Ambal Snuff' or which is otherwise likely to cause confusion and deception among the public.

(5) That the applicant's mark contains the expression "Sri Andal" of which the material and essential feature is "Sri Andal" which is deceptively similar to the expression 'Sri Ambal' and that, therefore, the registration of the mark would offend against the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958.

(6) That by reason of the reputation acquired by their marks the use of the applicant's mark is likely to cause confusion and deception and that, therefore, registration of the mark would offend against the provisions of Section 11 of the Act.'

(7) That as the expression 'Sri Radha's Sri Andal' is merely a combination of two personal names or surnames, the registration of the mark would offend against the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.

(8) That an application containing a mark substantially similar to the mark seeking registration bad been dismissed by the Madras High Court.

(9) That having regard to the unmeritorious conduct of the applicant in adopting and seeking registration of a mark which infringes their mark, the applicant's mark is disentitled to protection in a court and that therefore, registration is prohibited by Section 11 of the Act; and

(10) That the applicant not having come to court with clean hands, he is not entitled to the discretionary order vested in the tribunal.

2. The applicant filed a reply and contended that the mark propounded for registration in the above application is entitled to be registered and that the opposition is unsustainable in law.

3. The application for registration was heard by the Assistant Registrar of the Trade Marks, Madras. The Registrar before dealing with the claim referred to certain previous proceedings between the parties relating to the applicant's previous application No. 183961 for registration of a label mark in class 34 in respect of a designation of goods which was worded "snuff" manufactured in Madras. The essential feature of that label was a picture of goddess Andal and the legend 'Sri Andal'. The present respondents opposed the registration of that mark on the ground that the legend appearing on the mark was deceptively similar to the legend "Sri Ambal" appearing on their registered marks (opposition No. Mas 40). The Assistant Registrar on the first occasion dismissed the application holding that there was no deceptive similarity between the opponent's and the applicant's marks.

4. The opponents filed C. M. A. 266 of 1961 to the High Court, Madras, and this appeal was allowed by Jagadisan, J. and the registration ordered by the Assistant Registrar was set aside. The judgement of Jagadisan, J. was confirmed in L. P. Ap. No. 57 of 1962. The judgement is reported in K.R. Chinnikrishna Chettiar v. Sri Ambal and Co., 1964-2 Mad LJ 206. In the course of the hearing of the Letters Patent Appeal, the applicant filed O. C. M. P. 8934 of 1962 and sought leave of the