Counsel argued that the trade mark of the respondent does not have the word “Britannia” and clearly defers from the trademark of the applicant. Learned counsel contended that in its normal course of business the applicant diverted from the trade mark registered in 1998 and there are no chances of the applicant succeeding in the suit. Moreover he contended that the applicant is merely an assignee of that trademark. Counsel further submitted that the trademark 20189 which the applicant relies on does not give anybody exclusive use of the words “Nice & Lovely”. The respondents carried out a search in the registry showing that the words “Nice & Lovely” and even “Soft” have been extensively used by various persons undeterred. The names registered and attached to the affidavit of the responder in reply at paragraph 9 thereof and annexure “D” are: “Nice Oils”, “Nice Rose”, “Pretty Nice”, there is “Nice and clear” and “Nice and Lively”. There is also “Fair and Lovely”, “Lovely”, “Black and Lovely”, “Dark and Lovely”. Other registered names are “beauty and lovely”, “clear and lovely”, “dark and love ultra cholesterol” Consequently counsel argued that the applicant cannot claim to have exclusive rights over the words “Nice” and “lovely”. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the court should not go into details of the products but consider the alleged similarity at the hearing when the parties have adduced evidence. He contended that even by looking at the six products referred to by his learned colleague in annexure “G” and annexure “B”, it has not been proved that potential customers or clients would be confused. He contended that an examination of the avocado oil produced by applicant defers from that of the respondent and cannot cause confusion. That avocado is the raw material and one cannot say it is oil from jackfruit. As far as there was reference to glycerine, this is clearly marked “hand and body lotion”. As far as annexure “B” is concerned, the product involved moisturises and rejuvenates and the containers defer and cannot confuse anybody. Counsel referred to the product called “body milk lotion”. He contended that word “lotion” is common and on the other had is the terms “hand and body milk”. These two terms are not similar and cannot confuse anybody. They for instance have the words “beauty without compromise” which differentiates from products of the applicant. As far as the applicant‟s product “perfumed jelly” is concerned the contents of the containers defer from that of the respondent. The container of the respondent is all round whereas the container for “Nice and Lovely” has some inner curves. Secondly the baby milk on the nice and soft and that of nice and lovely are distinguishable and will be proved at the hearing. Learned counsel for the respondent also referred to the baby powder. The respondent‟s product has a baby photo while that of the applicant has a drawing of a baby lying down and these distinguishing features can be proved at the hearing. Counsel further contended that as far as the lemon product of respondent is concerned, the containers thereof defer. Moreover the product of the applicant is called “Neem” and not “lemon”. He submitted that it has not been proved that these products can cause any confusion.