Judgment :- Jayasimha Babu, J. This petition is by a person who was carrying on business in manufacturing of Beedies under the Trade mark "Kubera Gajapathy Beedies". The label that was being used by the plaintiff had the picture of Lord Ganesh in the centre with 'No. 711' written on either side of the picture. Petitioner became a defendant in the suit filed by the respondent herein in C.S. 97 of 1983 on the file of this court. The suit was brought on the ground that the mark that was being used by the petitioner herein infringed the trade marks of the respondent herein, who are the registered owner of the trade marks bearing Nos. 6425, 6426, 113569 and 127573 in clause 34. The marks registered in their name includes the name of Mangalore Ganesh Beedies, Ganesh Beedies, as also the label with the picture of Lord Ganesh with No.501 written on either side of the picture. 2. The trade marks in the name of the respondent were registered in the year 1942. It is not in dispute that those registered marks have been renewed from time to time and they are valid as on date. Respondent has been using these registered trade marks for over half a century. 3. The petitioner had filed an affidavit in that suit in A.No. 5556/86 wherein he has stated, inter alia, that he had "decided to discontinue my impugned mark. However, my right to contest the relief for infringement remains on the basis of the prohibition under Section 11 with respect to the registered trade marks of plaintiff. This petition came to be filed pursuant to the right which he claimed to have reserved in the affidavit filed by him in that suit. 4. In this petition, the petitioner has invoked section 56 of the Act read with Sections 107 and 11(d) of the Act. 5. Section 56 of the Act empowers the Court to cancel or vary the registration and to rectify the register. Clause 1 of Section 56 provides that" on application made in the prescribed manner to the High Court or to the Registrar by any person aggrieved, the court or tribunal may make such order as it may think fit for cancelling or varying the registration of a trade mark on the ground of any contravention, or failure to observe a condition entered on the register in relation thereto. "6. Section 56(4) provides that the Tribunal or the High Court or the Registrar on its own motion, may after giving notice to the parties concerned and giving them an opportunity, make an order referred to in subsection (1) or subsection (2). 7. Section 107 of the Act provides that" where in a suit for infringement of a registered trade mark the validity of the registration of the plaintiffs trade mark is questioned by the defendant or where in any such suit the defendant raises a defence under clause (d) of subsection (1) of Section 30 and the plaintiff questions the validity of the registration of the defendant's trade mark, the issue as to the validity of the registration of the trade mark concerned shall be determined only on an application for the rectification of the register and such application shall be made to the High Court and not to the Registrar. "8. Section 11 of the Act prohibits the registration of certain marks : It provides : A mark (a) (b) (c) (d) which comprises or containing any matter likely to hurt the religious susceptibilities of any class or section of the citizens of India; (e) which would otherwise be disentitled to protection in court; shall not be registered as a trade mark". 9. The first question that arises for considerations is as to whether the petitioner is a "person aggrieved" and if he is not, whether he can maintain this petition. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that a suit has been filed against him alleging infringement of trade mark and in that suit a question has arisen as to whether the registration is valid. On his own showing, the petitioner has decided to discontinue the use of the infringing mark. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is still engaged in manufacturing of beedies but he is not using the label with the picture of Lord Ganesh. The petitioner has practically submitted himself to a decree in the suit filed by the respondent. No right of the petitioner is affected by continuance of the mark of the respondent on the register. The petitioner does not have any intention of using that mark. The petitioner's business is in no way affected by the mark continuing to remain on the register or its registration in the name of the respondent. No right of the petitioner is affected by continuance of the mark of the respondent on the register. The petitioner does not have any intention of using that mark. The petitioner's business is in no way affected by the mark continuing to remain on the register or its registration in the name of the respondent. The petitioner in the circumstances cannot be regarded as a person aggrieved for the purpose of Section 56 of the Act. 10. 'Person aggrieved' was explained by Lord Berschell in Powell vs. Birmingham Vinegar Brewey Company 1894 AC 8 . As that explanation lucidly brings out the relevant tests for determining the person who can be said to be aggrieved for the purpose of Section 56 of the Act, as well, the same is extracted and set out below : Wherever it can be shown, as here, that the applicant is in the same trade as the person who has registered the trade mark, and wherever the trade mark if remaining on the Register, would or might limit the legal rights of the applicant, so that by reason of the existence of the entry on the Register he could not lawfully do that which but for the existence of the mark upon the Register he could lawfully do, it appears to me he has a locus standi to be heard as person aggrieved. "No legal right of the petitioner is affected and petitioner is not prevented from doing anything lawful by reason of the mark remaining on the register. The petitioner not being a 'person aggrieved', this petition is not maintainable. 11. As elaborate arguments were addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. U.N.R. Rao as also by the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. B.T. Seshadri on the substantive questions raised under Section 11, I will briefly consider the same though the petitioner is not entitled to such consideration. 12. According to the petitioner, religious susceptibility of the petitioner and of the Hindus in general is affected by the use of picture of Lord Ganesh on the label used by the respondent. The petitioner has not adduced any evidence in support of his assertion. 12. According to the petitioner, religious susceptibility of the petitioner and of the Hindus in general is affected by the use of picture of Lord Ganesh on the label used by the respondent. The petitioner has not adduced any evidence in support of his assertion. He has merely asserted that Lord Ganesh is worshipped by all Hindus in general, and the object of such reverence and worship cannot be allowed to be used as commercial mark for enabling the user to make profits with the use of the image of God. 13. While considering this contention, it is necessary to note the fact that the registered mark in this case was registered in the year 1942 and that during the course of these 52 years, no other person has questioned the validity of the registration on the ground that the religious susceptibilities of the Hindus are affected by using the mark for commercial purpose. The petitioner's claim that his religious susceptibility had been injuriously affected by the use of the impugned mark as also the pictorial representation cannot be given much credence. It is not as if the petitioner alone belongs to the class or section who worship Lord Ganesh. Though the vast majority of the population in this country worship Lord Ganesh, none had objected to the use of the mark for over half a century. Moreover, Hinduism is generous and tolerant and does not easily take offence at the pictorial representation of the Gods or Goddesses who form part of the Hindu Pantheon. Respondent has produced a list of registered trade marks containing the names of Lord Ganesh as also a list of marks incorporating the name of Lord Krishna. 14. In the directions issued by the Central Government under Section 23 (1) of the Act, setting out a list of marks which cannot be registered and which list includes Lord Buddha, Sri Ramakrishna, Sri Sarada Devi, the Sikh Gurus, Lord Venkateshwara and Chhatrapathi Shivaji, among others, Lord Ganesh is not mentioned. The Central Government is apparently of the view that registration of a mark containing the name or pictorial representation of Lord Ganesh is not per se objectionable. 15. The scope of Sections 11(d) and 11(e) of the Act is of course not circumscribed by the directions of the Central Government to the Registrar under Section 23. The Central Government is apparently of the view that registration of a mark containing the name or pictorial representation of Lord Ganesh is not per se objectionable. 15. The scope of Sections 11(d) and 11(e) of the Act is of course not circumscribed by the directions of the Central Government to the Registrar under Section 23. These directions are however, relevant to the extent of showing that use of names and marks not covered by such directions are per se not disentitled to registration. 16. The use of name though in itself not objectionable, may become objectionable if it is used in relation to goods with which it would be objectionable to associate the name. Though smoking is now recognised as hazardous to health, smoking is not prohibited by the religious doctrines of the Hindus. The reason for that may be that the use of tobacco was discovered long after the founding of the Hindu religion. This is not to say that Hindu religion approves smoking. 17. While it may be eminently desirable to prohibit the use of religious symbols in relation to marketing of goods and services in a secular state, more so in a country where even the literacy rate is low and people tend to be easily swayed by appeals to religion, and the use of religious symbols can carry the erroneous message that the goods sold under that symbol carry with them a religious sanction or at the least non-disapproval of the use of such goods, such prohibition has to be imposed by Parliament and in so far as new registrations are concerned, by the Central Government by issuing suitable directions under Section 23. 18. The alleged hurt to the religious susceptibility of the petitioner is indeed a very tall claim and is wholly lacking any credibility. The petitioner had been using the very same name and pictorial representation of the very same Deity for the product similar to that of the respondent. It is only after the petitioner was injuncted from continuing the use of that name and pictorial representation that the petitioner came up with this petition. The petitioner had been using the very same name and pictorial representation of the very same Deity for the product similar to that of the respondent. It is only after the petitioner was injuncted from continuing the use of that name and pictorial representation that the petitioner came up with this petition. On the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the long period of use by the respondent and the fact that no other person, section or class had complained of their religious susceptibility having been injured during this period, it must be held that no case is made out under Section 11(d) of the Act. 19. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also invoked Section 11(e) of the Act to contend that the mark containing the name of well known city Mangalore is not entitled to the protection of the Court, as even according to the respondents, the beedies are manufactured in several other places besides Mangalore and the head office of the respondent company is at Mysore. It is not open to the petitioner to raise this contention since the prayer in this petition is that" entries in the register in respect of the above mentioned trade marks bearing Registration Nos. 6425, 6426, 113569 and 127573 in Class-34 be rectified by the removal of the word "Ganesh" and the pictorial representation of the Hindu God Ganesh (a) and pass such further or other orders in the circumstances of the case". There is no prayer for the deletion of the word" Mangalore "from the registered trade mark. The argument now sought to be raised, does not found any basis for the petition. Even otherwise as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, the registration of the mark "Mangalore Ganesh Beedies" is not a prohibited mark and does not offend any other law, and therefore it does not fall within the ambit of Section 11(e). 20. Learned counsel for the respondent invited my attention to Section 32 of the Act which reads as under :" * 32. 20. Learned counsel for the respondent invited my attention to Section 32 of the Act which reads as under :" * 32. Registration to be conclusive as to validity after seven years :- Subject to the provisions of Section 35 and Section 46, in all legal proceedings relating to a trade mark registered in Part A of the Register (including applications under Section 56), the original registration of the trade mark shall, after the expiration of seven years from the date of such registration, be taken to be valid in all respects unless it is proved :- (a). that the original registration was obtained by fraud; (b). that the trade mark was registered in contravention of the provisions of Section 11 or offends against the provisions of that section on the date of commencement of the proceedings; or (c). that the trade mark was not, at the commencement of the proceedings, distinctive of the goods of the registered proprietor. 21. The scope of Section 11(e) has been considered by the Apex Court in the context of Section 32 of the Act in the case of National Bell Company vs. Metal Goods Manufacturing Company 1971 AIR(SC) 884, 1971 (1) SCC 18 , 1971 (2) SCR 427 , 1972 (1) MLJ 89 The Apex Court after considering various provisions of the Act held as follows : "The true construction of clause (e) of Section 11 is that even assuming that the trade marks in question were not distinctive and for that reason not registrable as not falling within section 9 that fact by itself would not mean that they become disentitled to the protection in a Court. Therefore, the rule as to the conclusiveness of the validity of registration embodied in Section 32 applies even to those cases where if full facts had been ascertained at the time of the registration, that registration would not have been allowed provided of course that it does not offend against the provisions of Section 11 i.e. in addition to the matters in clauses (a) to (d) in Section 11, be disentitled to protection in a Court. Clause (e) of Section 11 deals with prohibition and not with requisites of registration. Clause (e) of Section 11 deals with prohibition and not with requisites of registration. Therefore, although a mark cannot be registered for instance, because it is not distinctive as provided by Section 9, such a mark is not for that reason only one the registration of which is prohibited by Section 11." * 22. Mangalore is one of the cities where respondent manufacture its beedies. The owners hail from Mangalore. The Registrar did not consider the inclusion of the name of that city in the trade mark, to be objectionable. Registering a name along with the name of the city is not prohibited under Section 11. The petitioner does not seek rectification in so far as the name of the city is concerned. The invocation of Section 11 (e) to remove the name of the city from the registered mark is wholly untenable and is devoid of merit. 23. The registration of the mark "Mangalore Ganesh Beedies" which includes the name of a well known city besides the name of Lord Ganesh is not prohibited by Section 11 of the Act, and it cannot be said to be disentitled to protection of court under Section 11(e) of the Act. 24. None of there was no decided case of the Supreme Court on the question of infringement of copyright, Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered in detail the question of infringement of copyright, the object of the provisions of the copyright Act and also the factors that are to be born in mind while considering the fact that whether there is infringement or violation of the copyright. Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to the opinion of eminent authors has observed in Paragraph 14 of the judgment by quoting Halsbury's Laws of England by Lord Hailsham Fourth Edition as follows: "Moreover, it seems to us that the fundamental idea of violation of copyright or imitation is the violation of the Eighth ommandment: "Thou shalt not steal" which forms the moral basis of the protective provisions of the Copyright Act of 1911. It is obvious that when a writer or a dramatist produces a drama it is a result of his great labour, energy, time and ability and if any other person is allowed to appropriate the labours of the copyrighted work, his act amounts to theft by depriving the original owner of the copyright of the product of his labour. It is obvious that when a writer or a dramatist produces a drama it is a result of his great labour, energy, time and ability and if any other person is allowed to appropriate the labours of the copyrighted work, his act amounts to theft by depriving the original owner of the copyright of the product of his labour. It is also clear that it is not necessary that the alleged infringement should be an exact or verbatim copy of the original but its resemblance with the original in a large measure, is sufficient to indicate that it is a copy." 28. Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to the learned Authors on copyright and also decisions of the Courts has summarised succinctly the factors to be born in mind and has laid down the following prepositions: 1. There can be no copyright in a idea, subject-matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts and violation of the copyright in such cases is confined to the form, manner and arrangement and expression of the idea by the a grounds urged for the petitioner is tenable even if the petitioner were to be regarded as a person aggrieved and is entitled to maintain the petition under Section 56. Petition is therefore dismissed.