S. N. Sapra,j. ( 1 ) PLAINTIFFS have filed the present suit for prepetualinjunction, infringement of trade mark and copyright, passing off and rendition of accnts, against defendants. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the facts of the case are as under :plaintiff No. 1 is the proprietor of the trade mark kesh NIKHAR with a device of a woman under No. 216597 as of 17/07/1963, inclass 3 in respect of soap with the following disclaimer ; "registration of this trade mark shall give no right to theexclusive use of device of woman except substantially shown in therepresentation annexed herewith. " ( 3 ) THE trade mark has been renewed from time to time and is stillsubsisting on the register of trade marks. Plaintiff No. 1 is also the proprietor of copyright No. A-30760/50 in respect of art work as depicted onthe carton/box in which plaintiffs have been packing and selling their KESHNIKHAR soap. Plaintiff No. 2 was the original proprietor of the aforesaidtrade mark and copyright. However, same were assigned along with othertrade marks to plaintiff No. 1 vide assignment deed dated 6/12/1983. TM-24 in respect of change of name of proprietorship and recording of theassignment is under process. ( 4 ) PLAINTIFF No. 1 appointed plaintiff No. 2 as registered users andapplication for registration of registered users agreement is pending in thetrade marks Registry. Copy of the legal proceedings certificate obtainedearlier to the assignment, was also filed. ( 5 ) PLAINTIFFS have been continuously and extensively using the afore-said trade mark KESH NIKHAR, in respect of soap since the year 1935. Plaintiffs sale under the trade mark KESH NIKHAR runs into a crore ofrupees annually. Plaintiffs have also advertised their trade mark extensivelyby various medias of advertisement. On account of long, continuous andextensive user, the trade mark KESH NIKHAR and the carton, plaintiffs soap in a distinctive carton, has achieved unique reputation and is associatedin the minds of the public and the purchasers with soap manufactured byplaintiffs. It denotes and connotes the goods of plaintiffs and no one else. ( 6 ) THE purchasers and the intending purchasers of the KESHNIKHAR soap of plaintiffs include illiterate persons, including women andchildren who recognise and ask for the plaintiffs soap by the trade markkesh NIKHAR. ( 7 ) IN September, 1983, it came to the notice of plaintiffs that defendant no. ( 6 ) THE purchasers and the intending purchasers of the KESHNIKHAR soap of plaintiffs include illiterate persons, including women andchildren who recognise and ask for the plaintiffs soap by the trade markkesh NIKHAR. ( 7 ) IN September, 1983, it came to the notice of plaintiffs that defendant no. 2, who is the proprietor of defendant No. 1, brought into themarket soap under the trade mark BAL NIKHAR with the device of womanin carton like Annexure x . Then, plaintiffs filed a criminal complaintagainst defendants and their distributors, who were selling the soap inpatiala. It has further come to the notice of plaintiffs from the advertisement,appearing in Punjab Kesri, that defendants 1 and 2 had appointed defendant no. 3 as their distributor. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to plaintiffs, defendants have fraudulently and intentionally adopted the trade mark BAL NIKHAR in respect of their soap. Defendants have adopted carton and wrapper, like annexure x , which is adeceptive and fraudulent copy of plaintiffs carton, registered under thecopyright Act Defendants have even copied the plaintiffs wrapper andleaflet in all respects. Defendants soap cake has the same size, get up andcolour. Defendants have been selling their soap with malafide intention tomislead the persons to believe that defendants soap is that of plaintiffs. It isfurther alleged in the plaint that the trade mark BAL NIKHAR with thedevice, is an infringement of plaintiffs trade mark. The adoption of cartonfor soap by defendants is also infringement of plaintiffs copyright. Accord-ing to plaintiffs their soap is superior in quality than that of defendants. ( 9 ) IN their written statement, defendants have alleged that their trademark is entirely different from the trade mark of plaintiffs. The words KESHNIKHAR in respect of bathing soap is purely descriptive and there isnothing distinctive in the trade mark. The words KESH NIKHAR meancleaning of hair and the words are purely descriptive in respect of bathingsoap. Defendants have been using the trade mark BAL NIKHAR in respectof hair washing soap since August/september, 1983. The packing cartonsand the trade mark BAL NIKHAR of defendants are entirely different fromthe plaintiffs words and cartons. Plaintiffs filed the replication. ( 10 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : 1. Whether the defendants have infringed the plaintiffs trademark and copyright ? OPP2. The packing cartonsand the trade mark BAL NIKHAR of defendants are entirely different fromthe plaintiffs words and cartons. Plaintiffs filed the replication. ( 10 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : 1. Whether the defendants have infringed the plaintiffs trademark and copyright ? OPP2. Are the defendants selling goods so marked as to be designedor likely to lead purchasers to believe that they are plaintiffs goods? OPP3. Relief. ( 11 ) PARTIES have led evidence by means of affidavits. ( 12 ) PLAINTIFFS have filed affidavits or five persons by way of evidence. In addition, to supporting the allegations as made in the plaint, in hisaffidavit, Shri Anil Sabarwal, one of the Directors of plaintiff No. 1 and apartner of plaintiff no. 2, has stated that the main feature of the trade markis KESH NIKHAR. Plaintiffs have been using the label and colours asrepresented in the trade mark and copyright from the very begining. Plaintiffshave been using the pure material in the manufacture of their soap and thesame is free from animal facts. On account of purity of goods, sale promotion and long user, the trade mark KESH NIKHAR has become distinctivewith the good of plaintiffs. It has achieved a very enviable reputation and isassociated in the minds of public and purchasers that the soap is manufactured by plaintiffs. He has further stated that none could have designeddefendants label unless plaintiffs label was placed before the designer. ( 13 ) SHRI Ravinder Singh Sethi, in his affidavit, has stated that he wasusing Kesh Nikhar soap for the last 25 years. He is a conservative by natureand hate to use any soap in which there is animal fat. The soap KESHNIKHAR does not have animal fat. About 1 years back he went to themarket to purchase KESH NIKHAR soap and he asked the shopkeeper attripari Town for the same. Instead, the shopkeeper told him that Anil, whowas one of the partners of plaintiffs, had now separated from plaintiffs andhe had started a business under the name and style of Anil Soap andchemical Works at Kharak Pandoo. On the aforesaid plea, he purchasedthe Bal Nikhar soap but found that it was not upto the standard of KESH NIKHAR. ( 14 ) SHRI L. C. Tandon, in his affidavit, has stated that since the year1935, he has been reguraly using KESH NIKHAR soap, manufactured byplaintiffs. On the aforesaid plea, he purchasedthe Bal Nikhar soap but found that it was not upto the standard of KESH NIKHAR. ( 14 ) SHRI L. C. Tandon, in his affidavit, has stated that since the year1935, he has been reguraly using KESH NIKHAR soap, manufactured byplaintiffs. He has also stated that the soap does not contain animal fat andit is a pure soap. Plaintiffs soap is asked for by the trade mark KESHNIKHAR and is recognised by a colour scheme and get up. Two years back,he went to ashop in Patiala and asked for KESH NIKHAR. Instead, hewas handed over BAL NIKHAR. He was contused. On looking thoroughlyhe learnt that BAL NIKHAR was a copy of KESH NIKHAR. He madecomplaint to piaintiffs at Patiala. Both the soaps have similar cartonshaving same colour arrangement. Even the soap has same size, colour andget up. Other affidavits are to the similar facts. ( 15 ) SHRI Anil Kumar, sole proprietor of M/s Anil Soap and Chemicalworks, in his affidavit, has reiterated the facts, as alleged in the writtenstatement. Issue No. 1 ( 16 ) SHRI Anoop Singh, learned counsel for plaintiffs has urged thatdefendants counsel, in his statement dated 28/01/1987, admitted thatplaintiff No. 1 was the registered proprietor of trade mark No. 216597 andowner of copyright No. A 30760/80. After this admission, the only questionbefore the Court is whether, defendants by manufacturing and selling the soap BAL NIKHAR in cartons and wrappers, as placed on record, haveinfringed the trade mark and copyright of plaintiffs. He has placed relianceupon Section 29 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, (herein after REFERRED TO to as the Act), by urging that the Section clearly states that atrade mark is infringed, if someone without the permission of the registeredproprietor, in the course of trade uses a mark which is identical with ordeceptively similar to the trade mark in relation to any goods in respect ofwhich the trade mark is registered. His contention is that a comparison ofthe two cartons, clearly shows that defendants prepared their cartons byplacing the carton of plaintiffs before them. The main feature of plaintiffstrade mark is KESH NIKHAR, defendants have used the words BALNIKHAR. KESH and BAL convey the same meaning and same impressionin the minds of purchasers. He has placed reliance upon the judgment inhindustan Lever Limited v. Pioneer Soap Factory etc. , 1983 PTC, 211. The main feature of plaintiffstrade mark is KESH NIKHAR, defendants have used the words BALNIKHAR. KESH and BAL convey the same meaning and same impressionin the minds of purchasers. He has placed reliance upon the judgment inhindustan Lever Limited v. Pioneer Soap Factory etc. , 1983 PTC, 211. ( 17 ) SHRI Anoop Singh has contended that BAL NIKHAR is closedto infringement of KESH NIKHAR. The copyrighl action could be filedunder Sections 51 and 55 of the Copyright Act. Shri Anoop Singh has alsoplaced reliance upon a judgment in Peshawar Soap and Chemical Works v. Firm Patiala Soap and0il Mills etc. ,suit No. 115 77 decided on 8/08/1980, where the suit of plaintiff was decreed when defendants in that caseused the trade mark "maltex KESH NIKHAR". ( 18 ) RELIANCE has also been placed upon a judgment in M/s B. N. andcompany v. M/s Peshawar Soap and Chemical Works, F. A. O. No. 38/74decided on 23/04/1974. Shri Anoop Singh has further contended that thesales figures, as filed by plaintiffs, show the popularity and the increasingsale of plaintiffs soap Defendants have not given any sales or advertisementfigures. Plaintiffs advertisement runs into lakhs of rupees. ( 19 ) SHRI M. L. Mangla, learned counsel for defendants, contendedthat plaintiffs are not the registered proprietors of the words KESHNIKHAR as the trade mark of plaintiffs is a composite label consisting ofthe words PESCO and the words KESH NIKHAR with the disclaimer/description imposed by the Registrar of Trade Marks that the registrationof this mark shall give no right to the exclusive use of the device of awoman, except substantially as shown in the representation on the form ofapplication. Shri Mangia has further contended that Hindi words kesh Nikhar mean hair shine are purely descriptive and that is why the wordson the mark have been used in the registration. According to him, the trademark of plaintiffs is PESCO and the device of a woman is substantially shownin the trade mark. The words KESH NIKHAR are purely descriptive ofbathing soap and the words are being commonly used by all the consumersof bathing soaps. Thus, no monoply could be granted lor such highly descriptive words. He has placed reliance upon Section 34 of the Act. He hasalso placed reliance_upon the" judgments in Horlicks Malted Milk Co vsummer skill. (1916) 86 LJ. Ch. 175 and The Shredded Wheat Company Ltdv. Kellogg Co. of Great Britain Limited. Thus, no monoply could be granted lor such highly descriptive words. He has placed reliance upon Section 34 of the Act. He hasalso placed reliance_upon the" judgments in Horlicks Malted Milk Co vsummer skill. (1916) 86 LJ. Ch. 175 and The Shredded Wheat Company Ltdv. Kellogg Co. of Great Britain Limited. (1940) 57 R. P. C. 137. ( 20 ) SHRI Mangia has contended that the words KESH NIKHARhave not been separately registered by plaintiffs in their favour and soclaims of their packing cartons that PESCO and KESH NIKHAR are theregistered trade mark are absolutely wrong. ( 21 ). With regard to the infringement of copyright, Shri Mangla hasurgrd that the copyright lies in the actual execution of the artistic work. Inthe present case, the idea is that of a woman shown on the packing cartonregarding which there could not be any copyright. Even plaintiffs could notmake out a case of passing off as plaintiffs trade mark is PESCO whereasdefendants trade mark is BAL NIKHAR. Defendants, according to him, havebeen mentioning their complete name and address of every soap cake, beingmanufactured and sole by them. In this regard, he has placed reliance uponjudgment in Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dull Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceuticallaboratories, AIR 1965 S. C. 980. ( 22 ) IN Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma (supra) their Lordships ofsupreme Court have held : "in an action for infringement, the plaintiff must, no doubt, makeout that the use of the defendant s mark is likely to deceive, butwhere the similarity between the plaintiff s and defendant s mark isso close either visually, phonetically or otherwise and the courtreaches the conclusion that there is an imitation, no furtherevidence is required to establish that the plaintiff s right s areviolated. Expressed in another way, if the essential features of thetrade mark of the plaintiff have been adopted by the defendant,the fact that the get-up, packing and other writing or marks on thegoods or on the packets in which he offers hisgoods for sale showmarked differences, or indicate clearly a trade origin different fromthat of the registered proprietor of the mark would be immaterial;whereas in the case of passing off, the defendant may escapeliability if he can show that the added matter is sufficient to distinguish his goods from those of the plaintiff. When once the use by the defendant of the mark which isclaimed to infringe the plaintiff s mark is shown to be "in thecourse of trade", the question whether there has been an infringement is to be decided by comparison of the two marks. Where thetwo marks are identical no further questions arise; for then theinfringement is made out. When the two marks are not identical,the plaintiff would have to establish that the mark used by thedefendant so nearly resembles the plaintiff s registered trade markas is likely to deceive or cause confusion and in relation to goodsin respect of which it is registered (Vide S. 21 ). A point has sometimes been raised as to whether the words "or cause confusion"introduce any element which is not already covered by the words"likely to deceive" and it has some times been answered by sayingthat it is merely an extension of the earlier test and does not addvery materially to the concept indicated by the earlier words "likelyto deceive". But this apart, as the question arises in an action forinfringement the onus would be on the plaintiff to establish that thetrade mark used by the defendant in the course of trade in thegoods in respect of which his mark is registered, is deceptivelysimilar. This has necessarily to be ascertained by a comparison ofthe two marks--the degree of resemblance which is necessary toexist to cause deception not being capable of definition by layingdown objective standards. The persons who would be deceived are. of course, the purchasers of the goods and it is the likelihood oftheir being deceived that is the subject of consideration. The resemblance may be phonetic, visual or in the basic idea represented bythe plaintiff s mark. The purpose of the comparison is for deterining whether the essential features of the plaintiff s trade markare to be found in that used by the defendant. The identification ofthe essential features of the mark is in essence a question of factand depends on the judgment of the Court based on the evidenceled before it as regards the usage of the trade. It should, however,be borne in mind that the object of the enquiry in ultimate analysisis whether the mark used by the defendant as a whole is deceptivelysimilar to that of the registered mark of the plaintiff. It should, however,be borne in mind that the object of the enquiry in ultimate analysisis whether the mark used by the defendant as a whole is deceptivelysimilar to that of the registered mark of the plaintiff. It appears to us that the conclusion reached by the Courtsbelow that the appellant s mark is deceptively similar to that of therespondents can not be stated to be erroneous. Besides, this questionof deceptive similarity is a question of fact, unlees the test employed for determining it suffers from error. In the present case,it was not suggested that the Courts below had committed anyerror in laying down the principles on which the comparision hasto be made and deceptive similarity ascertained. (Sec per Lordwatson in Attorney-General for Ontario, 1897 As 199. As thereare concurrent findings of fact on this matter, we do not proposeto enter into a discussion of this question de novo, since we aresatisfied that the conclusion reached is not unreasonable. " ( 23 ) IN Kedar Nath v. Monga Perfumery and Flour Mills, A. I. R. 1973delhi, 12, this Court has held : "i have examined the plaintiff s cartons marked A and B and thedefendant s cartons marked C and D. Prima facie there is greatsimilarity between the two cartons. The colour scheme and the getup are similar. The word VIJAY which is used as a prefix is in asmall size. On viewing the impugned label vis-a-vis the label of theplaintiff, I think, there is bound to be confusion in the mind of apurchaser who wants to purchase SUDERSHAN DHOOP. Thewords VIJAYA is not likely to catch the eye of the purchaser forit is inconspicuous and an unwary purchaser is likely to think thatthe defendant s VIJAY SUDERSHAN DHOOP is the same product as the plaintiff s SUDERSHAN DHOOP and he is not likelyto find that it is different from the plaintiff s dhoop. I think thatin this case the sale of the impugned article amounts to injury tothe plaintiff and, therefore, it is necessary to prevent the mischief. Some temporary relief has io be granted to the plaintiff in order tosafeguard his right against the irreparable injury which may resultto him. The plaintiff has placed suffcient material on the recordincluding the certificate of registration of copyright and trade mark. It appears that the plaintiff has certainly been carrying on businessfrom 1960. No such material has been placed on the record. The plaintiff has placed suffcient material on the recordincluding the certificate of registration of copyright and trade mark. It appears that the plaintiff has certainly been carrying on businessfrom 1960. No such material has been placed on the record. Hehas not filed any details of advertisements or expenses incurred byhim on making advertisements though in his pleadings it is averredthat the defendant s dhoop is also an established product and thathe has spent considerable amount on the advertisements. I do notset down in detail the resernblances between the plaintiff s cartonsand the defendant s cartons lest it should amount to an expressionof final opinion. The Supreme Court in Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J. P. and Co. Mysore. AIR 1972 SC 1359 has laid down the test todetermine the question when a trade mark is deceptively similar toanother. Their Lordships observed at page 1362 :"it is therefore clear that in order to come to the conclusionwhether one mark is deceptively similar to another the broad andessential features of the two are to be considered. They should notbe placed side by side to find out if there are any differences in thedesign and if so, whether they are of such character as to preventone design from being mistaken for the other. It would be enoughif the impugned mark bears such an overall similarity to theregistered mark as would be likely to mislead a person usuallydealing with one to accept the other if offered to him. "a little later it was observed :- "after all, an ordinary purchaser is not gifted with thepowers of observation of a Sherlock Holmes". ( 24 ) IN Peshawar Soap and Chemical Works (Suit No. 115/77 (supra),present plaintiff No. 1 filed a suit for permanent injunction against the firmpatiala Soap and Oil Mills etc. Defendants in that suit started manufacturingand selling the soap under the trade mark ranicca Kesh Nikhar with thecarton containing the device of a woman, as done by plaintiff. Mr. Justiced. R. Khanna, while decreeing the suit of plaintiff,. held that defendants byusing the words kesh Nikhar were infringing the plaintiff s trade mark. ( 25 ) THE facts giving rise to F. A. O. No. 38/1974, (supra) were thatm/s Peshawar Soap and Chemical Works (Present plaintiff No. 1 ) wereregistered proprietors of trade mark PESCO KESH NIKHAR SOAP". Defendants M/s B. N. and Company started manufacturing soap with the mark"martex KESH NIKHAR SOAP". ( 25 ) THE facts giving rise to F. A. O. No. 38/1974, (supra) were thatm/s Peshawar Soap and Chemical Works (Present plaintiff No. 1 ) wereregistered proprietors of trade mark PESCO KESH NIKHAR SOAP". Defendants M/s B. N. and Company started manufacturing soap with the mark"martex KESH NIKHAR SOAP". Though the cartons used by defendants were of different colour and setting,than those of plaintiffs, Mr. Justice R. N. Aggarwal observed that the wordskesh NIKHAR appeared prominently in English, Hindi and Punjabi onthe cartons used by defendants. The word PESCO on the plaintiffs cartonappeared in small letters. On seeing the cartons used by plaintiffs and defendants, Mr. Justice R. N. Aggarwal held that he had little doubt that thecustomer could be easily misled in purchasing the soap manufactured bydefendants as that of the soap manufactured by plaintiffs. ( 26 ) SECTIONS 2 (d) and 29 of the Act read as under : "2 (D) "deceptively similar" :-A mark shall be deemed to be deceptively similar to another mark if it is so nearly resembles that othermark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion. "section 29 "29. Infringement of trade marks :- (1) A registered trade mark isinfringed by a person who, not being the registered proprietor ofthe trade mark or a registered user thereof using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade a mark which is identicalwith, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark, in relation to anygoods in respect of which the trade mark is registered and in suchmanner as to render the use of the mark likely to be taken as beingused as a trade mark. (2) In an action for infringement of a trade mark registeredin part B of the register an injunction or other relief shall not begranted to the plaintiff if the defendant establishes to the satisfaction of the court that the use of the mark of which the plaintiffcomplains is not likely to deceive or cause confusion or to be takenas indicating a connection in the course of trade between the goodsin respect of which the trade mark is registered and some personhaving the right, either as registered proprietor or as registered user,to use the trade mark. " ( 27 ) IT is an admitted fact that plaintiff No. 1 is the registeredproprietor of the trade mark No. 216597 and owner of copyright No. A 30760/80 I have compared the two cartons and also examined the trademarks, being used by plaintiffs as well as defendants. The Legal Proceedingscertificate of trade mark No. 216597 is Ext. P. I. There is no force in thecontention of learned counsel for defendants that plaintiffs registered trademark is PESCO. The use of the word PESCO makes no difference to thewords KESH NIK. HAR. From the evidgnce it appears that in fact, the wordsk. ESH NIK. HAR are associated with plaintiffs on account of the continuousand extensive use of these words with a device of a woman. Defendantshave adopted the trade mark BAL NIKHAR. What the word BAL means. It means hair. KESH also means hair. The words KESH NIKHAR are notmerely of the descriptive nature, as argued by learned counsel fordefendants. ( 28 ) IN Hindustan Lever Limited (supra), Mr. Justice Charanjit Talwarheld that the mark sura) being equivalent in English to the mark sun was to be considered deceptively similar and as such there was likelihood ofdefendants products being passed off as that of plaintiff. The picture ofwoman on the carton of the defendants is no doubt different in style fromthat of the device of a woman on the carton of plaintiffs. But one is to seethe entire effect of the carton, including its design, size and colour scheme. This coupled with the trade mark KESH NIKHAR leaves no doubt in mymind that the adoption bydefendants of the trade mark BAL NIKHARsoap along with the device of a woman and the carton are deceptivelysimilar to that of plaintiffs ( 29 ) THE purpose of comparison is for determining whether the essential features of the plaintiffs trade mark have been used by defendants. Thisis purely a question of fact. I am of the view that the essential features ofplaintiffs trade mark as well as the copyright have been adopted by defendants in ths impugned trade mark and the carton. Defendants soap has thesame size, get-up and colour. Thus, I hold that defendants have infringedthe trade mark and copyright of plaintiffs. ( 30 ) ISSUE No. 1 is decided in favour of plaintiffs and against defendants. Defendants soap has thesame size, get-up and colour. Thus, I hold that defendants have infringedthe trade mark and copyright of plaintiffs. ( 30 ) ISSUE No. 1 is decided in favour of plaintiffs and against defendants. Issue No. 2 ( 31 ) SHRI Anoop Singh, learned counsel for plaintiffs, has contendedthat a look at the rival labels would clearly show that no one could havedesigned the label of defendants, unless plaintiffs, label was placed before theartist to design the label. Even the device of a woman has been substantiallycopied. In spite of the fact that there is a disclaimer on the device of thewoman, a suit for passing off ws maintainable. He has placed reliance uponthe judgments in cases Registrar of Trade Marks v. Ashok chandra Rakhitltd. . A. I. R. 1955 SC. 558; Mohamed Minhajuddin v. Ahmed Khan, A. I. R. 1959 Andbra Pradesh 168; Parle Products {p) Ltd. v. J. P. and Co Mysore,a. 1. R. 1972. S. C. I 359; Kedar Nath v. Monga Perfumery and Flour Mills,a. 1. R. 1974 Delhi 12; and BK Engineering Company, Delhi v. U B. H l. Enterprises (Regd) Ludhiana and another, A. I. R 1985 Delhi 210. ( 32 ) IN Parle Products (P) Ltd. , (supra) it was held that two markscould not be compared by placing them side by side but has to be consideredas to what is the impression left upon the mind of the purchaser who hasonce purchased the plaintiffs good and next time go to the market topurchase the same. ( 33 ) AFTER comparing the two cartons, wrappers and the cakes, I holdthat defendants goods have been so designed, which are likely to leadpurchaser to believe that these goods are those of plaintiffs goods. ( 34 ) PLAINTIFFS have been using the trade mark and copyright from thevery beginning. The trade mark KESH NIKHAR has become distinctive withthe goods of plaintiffs. I am of the view-that the trade mark is associated inthe minds of the public and purchasers that soap is Manufactured byplaintiffs. Anordinary purchaser is not gifted with the power of observations. Intending purchasers include illeterate persons, women and children. I have already held that the mark BAL NIKHAR with the impugned cartonis deceptively similar to that of plaintiffs. It is likely to_confuse the purchasers. Anordinary purchaser is not gifted with the power of observations. Intending purchasers include illeterate persons, women and children. I have already held that the mark BAL NIKHAR with the impugned cartonis deceptively similar to that of plaintiffs. It is likely to_confuse the purchasers. Accordingly, I hold that the goods of plaintiffs so marked, arelikely to lead purchasers to believe that same are plaintiffs goods. ( 35 ) ISSUE No. 2 is decided in favour of plaintiffs and against defendants. Issue No. 3 ( 36 ) I decline the relief of rendition of accounts, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 37 ) UNDER the facts and circumstances of the case, I grant a decree infavour of plaintiffs and against defendants to the following effects : (A) For perpetual injunction restraining defendants themselvestheir servants, agents, dealers and all other persons on theirbehalf from using the mark BAL NIKHAR in the impugnedcartons in respect of soap or any other mark which is deceptively similar to and infringement of their registrered trademark No. 216597; (b) For perpetual injunction restraining defendants themselves,their servants, agents, dealers and all other persons on theirbehalf from using the impugned carton in respect of soap whichis an infringement of plaintiff s registered copyright No. A. 30760/80; (c) For perpetual injunction restraining the defendants themselves,their servants, agents, dealers and all other persons on theirbehalf from using the impugned carton so as to pass off theirsoap and make others to pass off their soap as the soap ofplaintiffs in impugned cartons including the mark BALNIKHAR; (d) For delivery upon affidavit by the defendants of all the impugned cartons blocks, dies, printed and advertising materialbearing the mark BAL NIKHAR in their possession or powerfor purposes of destruction and/or obliteration as the casemay be. Plaintiffs are also entitled to the costs of the present suit