The essential features of a trademark and the likelihood of confusion or deception in the minds of the public are crucial factors in determining trademark infringement.

VENKATADRI, J. :- This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment of Ganapatia Pillai, J., confirming the dismissal of their suit for an injunction restraining the defendant and his agents from selling beedies under the name "Maharani Beedi" or under any name which is a close and colourable imitation of the plaintiffs' trade mark "Maharaja Beedi" and from using wrappers, labels and ring labels, in colourable imitation of those of the plaintiffs and from passing of his beedies as those of the plaintiffs, for directing the defendants to deliver to the plaintiffs all the printing blocks used by him for printing his wrappers and labels and ring labels and to deliver to the plaintiffs all the unused wrappers and labels of the Maharani beedies and for recovery of damages of Rs. 1,000 and costs.

2. The plaintiffs are manufacturing and selling beedies under the name of Maharaja beedies for the past 30 years. In the plaint, they state that their Maharaja beedies have acquired a wide reputation and popularity in the market, especially in the States of Mysore, and Andhra Pradesh. Their factory for manufacturing these beedies is at Ranipet for the past several years. They registered the said mark under Trade Marks Act of 1940 on 26-1-1945 under the mark bearing No. 105149. The central and prominent feature of the said mark is the picture of a Maharaja and this as well as the other features of the mark including the colour, the lettering, the lions, the floral designs, etc., have for long been associated by the smoking public with beedies known as Maharaja beedies. The plaintiffs have also registered on 28-1-1955 another mark as part of a series bearing No. 105150 under the Trade Marks Act and that mark consists of the picture of a Maharaja with the letters T.M. on each side of it. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant, who was previously employed as a car driver under the plaintiffs till a year prior to the filing of the plaint, started manufacturing and selling beedies under the name of Maharani beedies, which is a colourable imitation of the trade mark and trade name of the plaintiffs. The main complaint of the appellants in the plaint is that the wrappers and labels used by the defendant for his Maharani beedies are almost an exact reproduction of the appellants wrappers and labels except for the slight and deceptive change in the name of the mark from Maharaja to Maharani. Hence the suit.

3. The defendant denies that his trade mark was a colourable imitation of the plaintiffs' trade mark and asserted that the plaintiffs cannot claim any monopoly or exclusive right to the use of the word 'Maharaja' and that even assuming that the plaintiffs have a right to the use of the word Maharaja', the two trade marks of the plaintiffs and the defendant are different, dissimilar and distinct in every respect and by no stretch of imagination could the Maharani mark be said to be a close and colourable imitation of the Maharaja mark. He alleged that the Maharani mark originally belonged to one Hameed of Wallajah from whom the defendant purchased the said mark together with the good will of the business on 2-4-1958, under a registered deed of sale for Rs. 1,500. He also set up various defences like estoppel, waivers and acquiescence and further pleaded that he was protected by honest and concurrent user.

4. On these pleadings the parties went to trial before the District Judge, North Arcot. The learned District Judge found that the defendant's mark cannot lead to confusion or deception and that the defendant cannot be said to have copied the dosing of the plaintiff and in this view he dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

5. When the matter came up in appeal to the High Court, Ganapatia Pillai, J., after considering the relevant sections of the Trade Marks Act and the cases cited by the respective counsel agreed with the finding of the trial Court that the similarity between the two marks is not likely to lead t