Short Note : 1. The appeal was by the defendant against the judgment of the 1st Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, decreeing a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the device of Bachhia on the 'Bachhia Chhap' soap manufactured and sold by him. The plaintiff had also filed the cross-objection against the refusal of relief in respect of his passing off action. The main controversy was whether the defendant had infringed the registered trade mark of 'Gai Chhap' of the plaintiff and whether the defendant was passing off the soap manufactured by the plaintiff. Held: The trial Court, in the opinion of this Court, has rightly determined the question of infringement by looking at the soaps, having due regard to the surrounding circumstances, the defendant's mark as used on the soaps, the overall similarity between the two and that the persons buying carried imperfect visual impressions in their minds. This Court agrees with the finding as regards the infringement by the defendant of the trade of the plaintiff. The distinctions pointed out by learned counsel for the defendant are not noticeable. The belt on the neck of the calf, the absence of horn and teats on Bachhia Chhap' soap were hardly such details which a purchaser noticed while buying the soap. The emblem of the calf on the 'Bachhia Chhap' soap resembled greatly to that of the 'Gai Chhap' trade mark. Not only the device but the got up of the soap was similar. Moreover, the soaps were not sold with the wrappers. The wrappers were only used as packing for 4 or more soaps together. The finding that the device of 'Bachhia Chhap' was deceptively similar to that of 'Gai Chhap' is correctly arrived at. The confusion created in the mind of a purchaser with the visual similarity was bound to arise particularly in case of the illiterate purchaser. The distinction used by the defendant were not such that the purchaser could distinguish the two soaps while buying them without the aid of comparing the labels. This Court would therefore allow the cross-objection holding that the defendant's use of the device was calculated to pass off the soaps sold by him as those of the plaintiff and he should be restrained from such use by an injunction. Appeal dismissed.