THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 29.09.2011
Judgment Pronounced on: 31.10.2011
+ CS(OS) 1355/2006
ZIPPO MANUFACTURING COMPANY ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Advocate
and Ms. Tanya Verma, Advocate
versus
ANIL MOOLCHANDANI & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: None.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
1.
Whether Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in Digest?
V.K. JAIN, J
1. The plaintiff is a company registered in U.S.A and
claims to be world leader in manufacture and trade of
lighters, which it sells under its invented trademark Zippo,
which is alleged to be well-known trademark. The use of the
trademark Zippo extends to other products as well such as
desk accessories, writing instruments, travel accessories,
outdoor products, golf accessories, money clips, key
CS(OS)No. 1355/2006 Page 1 of 23
holders, tape measures, shoes, belts and suspenders, etc.
The design of the trademark Zippo has the lighter resting in
a rectangular casing, split into two parts and the bottom
part has a matching flip-top part welded into a hinge. Both
the parts are rectangular in shape with rounded edges and
corners to hold the flip-top in a fully opened or shut
position. The lighter incorporates a spring and cam
arrangement that enables the user to operate the top with
on hand. An important feature of the lighter is the chimney
or windscreen enclosing the wick with round air holes
punched into its sides in horizontal rows of three-two-three
formation. It is claimed that the shape of the lighter as well
as well as the windscreen chimney are unique and have
acquired a secondary meaning to denote the plaintiff‟s
cigarette lighters. It is also alleged that the plaintiff has
been manufacturing and selling lighters across 120
countries and by virtue of such continuous and
longstanding user, the mark has acquired the status of well-
known trademark. It is also alleged that the plaintiff has
invested the huge sums of money in promoting and
publicizing the sale of goods using the trademark Zippo. It
is also alleged that the goods under the trademark Zippo
CS(OS)No. 1355/2006 Page 2 of 23
have been available in India at duty free shops, embassies,
consulates and have been regularly brought into the
country by tourists and have been imported under
permitted baggage rules. It is claimed that the trademark
Zippo is well-known to Indian consumers due to their
exposure to advertisements for various products under the
trademark Zippo in prominent magazines including in-flight
magazines in domestic and international airlines operating
in and from India. The plaintiff also claims to be the
proprietor of a registration for the 3-dimensional shape of
its lighters by registration No. 714368 since 10th May, 1996.
2. It is alleged that in February, 2006, it was brought
to the notice of the plaintiff that defendant No. 2 was selling
counterfeit Zippo lighters from its various outlets in Delhi
and those lighters not only bore the word mark Zippo, but
also constituted infringement of plaintiff‟s shape mark and
were in fact verbatim imitation of the product of the
plaintiff. In reply to a notice sent to it by the plaintiff,
defendant No. 1 gave a categorical undertaking to remove
the infringing stock from all shops and not to sell any
objectionable counterfeit Zippo lighters in future. However,
in first week of June, 2006, the plaintiff discovered that the
CS(OS)No. 1355/2006 Page 3 of 23
defendants were continuing to sell the counterfeit products.
Such counterfeit lighters were purchased by the
representative of the plaintiff from defendants No. 3 and 4.
It is alleged that the activities of the defendants, besides
infringing the registered trademark of the plaintiff, also
amount to passing off their cheap quality lighters as those
of the plaintiff and sale of such counterfeit product has
already caused unquantifiable losses to the plaintiff. The
plaintiff has accordingly sought injunction, restraining the
defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or
advertising lighters which are deceptively similar to that of
the plaintiff and thereby infringing its registered shape mark
under registration No. 714368.
3. During the pendency of the suit, the suit was
decreed against defendants No. 1 and 2 on 8th December,
2008 in terms of their compromise with the plaintiff and
they were restrained from (i) importing, marketing, selling or
offering for sale or using the plaintiff‟s registered trademark
ZIPPO in an unauthorized manner on the product or the
casing, or in any other manner in the course of trade,
amounting to infringement of plaintiff‟s registered
trademark under No. 562866; (ii) importing, marketing,
CS(OS)No. 1355/2006 Page 4 of 23
selling or offering for sale cigarette lighters infringing the
plaintiff‟s registered shape mark under No. 714368; (iii)
using the logo of the plaintiff in an unauthorized manner on
the product or in any other manner amounting to passing
off;
4. The suit against defendant No. 3 was also disposed
of in terms of its settlement with the plaintiff contained in IA
No. 9109/2009. Under this settlement, defendant No. 3
undertook not to purchase ZIPPO lighters from any other
person other than official distributor of plaintiff in India and
not to file any application for registration of the trademark
ZIPPO or any other mark similar to the aforesaid mark of
the plaintiff.
5. The plaintiff has examined two witnesses by way of
ex parte evidence. PW-1 Mark Paup, is the Vice-President
(Sales and Marketing) of the plaintiff-company. He has
supported, on oath, the case setup in the plaint and has
stated that goods under the trademark ZIPPO have been
available in India at duty free shops, embassies and
consulates and have been brought into the country
regularly by tourists or have been imported under permitted
baggage rules. He has further stated that the goods of the
CS(OS)No. 1355/2006 Page 5 of 23
plaintiff are available in India at a number of retail outlets
in major cities. PW-2 J.P. Sharma has stated that he was
employed by the plaintiffs to investigate whether defendant
No. 4 was dealing in counterfeit ZIPPO lighters and in June,
2006, he visited the premises of defendant No. 4 and
purchased lighters bearing the trademark ZIPPO against
cash memo, copy of which is annexure „B‟ to his affidavit.
The copy of the photographs of that product is Annexure „A‟
to the affidavit of the witness. A perusal of the legal
proceedings certificates (Ex. PW-1/21) filed by the plaintiff
company would show that the trademark ZIPPO (word
mark) is registered in favour of the plaintiff Company in
respect of cigarette lighters since 29.11.1991 vide Certificate
No. 219509. The registration is valid upto 29.11.2015.
These documents also show that the device appearing on
the Registration No.714368 (Ex. PW-1/22) issued on
13.12.2005, is also registered in the name of the plaintiff
Company since 10.5.2006, in respect of cigarette lighter
falling in Class 34. The registration is valid upto
10.05.2016.
6. The plaintiff-company also holds a number of other
registration of the mark ZIPPO in its favour, in respect of
CS(OS)No. 1355/2006 Page 6 of 23
products other than cigarette lighters such as lighter fluid,
flints and wicks, writing instruments viz. mechanical
pencils and ball point pens, wearables viz. Tee-shirts, sports
shirts, sweat shirts and sweaters, flash lighters and
fragrances for personal use.
7. In his affidavit by way of evidence, Mr Mark Paup,
vice-president (Sales and Marketing) of the plaintiff-
company has stated that the plaintiff-company is a world
leader in manufacturing and trade of lighters under the
invented and well-known trademark ZIPPO. According to
him, these lighters are windproof and are sold with a
lifetime guarantee to repair them free of charge, regardless
of age and condition of the lighter. According to him, the
plaintiff has extended use of its well-known trademark
ZIPPO to various other products, including desk accessories
(letter openers), writing instruments (turtle point pens,
Tionesta), travel accessories, outdoor products, golf
accessories, money clips, key holders, watches (human
flame), sunglasses (Zippo Italia), Flashlights, women‟s and
men‟s begs, men‟s accessories such as wallets, etc.). He has
claimed that lighters under the trademark ZIPPO are being
sold by the plaintiff-company in 160 countries and this
CS(OS)No. 1355/2006 Page 7 of 23
trademark came to be coined by Mr George G. Blaisdell,
founder of the company. He has further stated that goods
under the trademark ZIPPO have been available in India at
duty free shops, embassies, consulates and have been
regularly brought into the country by tourists and have
been imported under permitted baggage rules. He has
further claimed that the trademark ZIPPO is well-known to
Indians and global consumers due to the exposure to
advertisements of products sold under the trademark
ZIPPO, in various prominent magazines, including in-flight
magazines and that the goods of the plaintiff-company are
available in India in a number of outlets in most major
cities.
8. In his affidavit, Mr J.P. Sharma, Investigator,
whom the plaintiff-company had deployed to verify whether
defendant No. 4 was engaged in dealing in counterfeit ZIPPO
products or not, has stated that in June, 2006, he visited
the premises of Archie‟s Gallery and purchased lighters vide
invoice, copy of which has been annexure B to his affidavit
Annexure A to his affidavit is the photograph purchased by
him from Archie‟s Gallery at D-851, New Friends Colony. It
would thus be seen that the plaintiff is the registered owner
CS(OS)No. 1355/2006 Page 8 of 23
of the mark ZIPPO in India in respect of cigarettes lighters.
The plaintiff-company also holds a registration of the device
of a lighter in India vide Registration No. 714368. Section
2(m) of Trademarks Act, 1999 defines the mark to include a
device and shape of goods. Normally, device would mean
pictorial representation of a product which is used either on
the product or on its packaging. However, considering the
nature of the product in respect of which the device has
been registered in favour of the plaintiff-company vide
Registration No. 714368, it appears to me that this is
nothing, but registration of the shape of a cigarette lighter.
Though it has been described as a device in the registration,
it is difficult to say that by registering this device vide
Registration No. 714368, the Registrar of Trade Marks was
registering only a pictorial representation of the lighter
shown in the device. Considering the nature of the product
in respect of which registration has been obtained, no useful
purpose is served from obtaining registration of a pictorial
representation of a lighter. I am in agreement with the
learned counsel for the plaintiff that while seeking
registration granted by Registration No. 714368, the plaintiff
was seeking registration of the shape of the lighter, as
CS(OS)No. 1355/2006 Page 9 of 23
shown in the pictorial representation of the product which
appears on the Certificate of Registration to describe it as a
device, appears to me an inadvertent error on the part of
Trade Mark Registry. I agree with him that it is meaningless
to obtain registration of a pictorial representation of the
lighter if the shape of the lighter is not the subject matter of
registration. Vide his affidavit dated 20 th September, 2011,
Col. J.K. Sharma, constitute attorney of the plaintiffs, has
stated that defendant No. 4, which is a franchise of
defendant No. 2, is owned and managed by Mr Vinod
Sachdeva along with his son Mr Vineet Sachdeva and has
since shifted its operations from D-851, New Friends Colony
to Shop No. 134-A, Taimoor Nagar, New Friends Colony. He
has further stated that telephone No. 26840507 which
appears on the invoice, issued by defendant No. 4 and
telephone No. 26840506 which appears on the visiting card
of Mr Vineet Sachdeva, are registered in the name of Mr
Vinod Sachdeva. It would thus be seen that the plaintiff-
company is the exclusive owner of the word mark ZIPPO
and it also holds trademark in respect of the shape of the
lighters being sold by it under the trademark ZIPPO. The
affidavit of Mr J.P. Sharma shows that the defendant sold a
CS(OS)No. 1355/2006 Page 10 of 23
lighter bearing the trademark ZIPPO to him vide invoice,
copy of which is annexure B to his affidavit. A perusal of
the photograph of the product, which Mr J.P. Sharma
purchased from defendant No. 4, would show that the
defendant has been using the trademark ZIPPO on the
lighters sold by him. A comparison of the photograph of the
product of the plaintiff with the photograph of the product
purchased by Mr J.P. Sharma from defendant No. 4 shows
that the name on and shape of the lighter which Mr.
J.P.Sharma purchased from defendant No.4 is exactly the
same which the plaintiff-company has been using its
lighters and which is the registered trademark of the
plaintiff-company. Therefore, by using the word mark ZIPPO
and the shape of the product of the plaintiff-company,
defendant No. 4 infringed the registered trademarks of the
plaintiff-company.
9. In M.R.F.Limited versus Metro Tyres Limited,
1990-PTC-101, the plaintiff sought an injunction restraining
the defendant from selling autorikshaw tyres having
prominent features of the tread pattern similar to that of the
tread pattern of the autorikshaw tyres of the plaintiff. While
granting injunction to the plaintiff, the Court observed that
CS(OS)No. 1355/2006 Page 11 of 23
in India, all the tyres are black and circular, the prominent
distinguishing feature being the tread pattern and other
features of arrangement. The Court felt that tread is an
essential and integral part of the tyre itself performing
purely a functional and utilitarian role. The Court was of
the view that unlike a wrapper, a label or a container, the
tread was not something external to the tyre but it was an
indivisible part. It was also observed that when a purchaser
goes to purchase a scooter tyre manufactured by the
plaintiff and that tyre is not available whereas the tyre of the
defendant is available, the shopkeeper may point out the
tread pattern in the tyre of the defendant and the purchaser
may purchase the tyre having regard to the similarity of the
tread pattern irrespective of the manufacturers. The Court
felt that similarity of the tread pattern may also raise a
presumption of common origin or close business association
between the plaintiff and the defendant. The Court was of
the view that merely because the plaintiff had not secured
registration of the design under the Designs Act or under
the Patent Act, it cannot be said that the tread pattern of
the plaintiff‟s tyres could be copied by the defendant.
In the case before this Court, even if defendant No.4
CS(OS)No. 1355/2006 Page 12 of 23
does not use the word mark „ZIPPO‟ but continues to
use the shape of the lighter of the plaintiff, the
customer on account of unique shape of the lighter,
may presume that it is Zippo lighter which the plaintiff
company sells almost through the world and,
therefore, may believe that the lighter which defendant
No.4 is offering to him has been either manufactured
by the plaintiff company itself or it has been
manufactured in collaboration with and/or under
licence from the plaintiff company and that is why, it
has a shape identical to that of the lighters of the
plaintiff company.
In Gorbatschow Wodka KG versus John
Distilleries Limited, 2011 (47) PTC 100(Bom), the plaintiff
claimed that the shape of its bottles of Vodka was distinctive
and formed an intrinsic part of its goodwill and reputation.
The bottle which the defendant had adopted was alleged to
be deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff,
on account of similarity in the shape of the bottles, claimed
a dilution of the distinctive shape under which Vodka
bottles of the plaintiff are marketed and sold, a dilution of
the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff in relation to the
CS(OS)No. 1355/2006 Page 13 of 23
distinctive shape of the bottle, passing off at common law,
unfair competition and a mushrooming effect in that unless
the defendant were to be stopped other potential infringers
may be emboldened to encroach upon the rights of the
plaintiff. The defendant in that case had obtained
registration of its shape under the Designs Act, 2000. The
contention of the plaintiff was that registration under
Designs Act was no defence to an action for passing off
since there was no procedure in the Act for advertising and
for receipt of oppositions. Granting injunction to the
plaintiff, the Court, inter alia, observed as under:-
“The action before the Court is a quia timet
action which seeks to injunct the defendant
from launching its product in India. The basis
and foundation of the action is that the
defendant has adopted a bottle for the sales of
its product which in its shape bears a striking
resemblance to the bottle of the plaintiff.
Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the shape of
goods is now statutorily recognized as being
constituent element of a trade mark.
Section2(zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999
defines the expression „trade mark‟ to mean “a
mark capable of being represented graphically
and which is capable of distinguishing the
goods or services of one person from those of
others” and to include the “shape of goods,
their packaging and combination of colours”.
Parliament has, therefore, statutorily
recognized that the shape in which goods are
marketed, their packaging and combination of
colours for part of what is described as theCS(OS)No. 1355/2006 Page 14 of 23
trade dress. A manufacturer who markets a
product may assert the distinctive nature of
the goods sold in terms of the unique shape
through which the goods are offered for sale.”“The shape of the bottle which the plaintiff has
adopted has no functional relationship with
the nature of the product or the quality
required of the container in which Vodka has
to be sold. The shape, to use the language of a
leading authority on the subject, is capricious.
It is capricious in the sense that it is novel and
originated in the ingenuity and imagination of
the plaintiff. Prima facie, a comparison of the
shape of the bottle which has been adopted by
the defendant with the bottle of the plaintiff
would show a striking similarity. As a matter
of fact, counsel appearing on behalf of the
defendant did, during the course of the
submission, concede that there are
similarities.”
In Reckitt & Colman Products Limited versus
Bordeen Inc. and Others [1990] RPC 341, [1988] FSR
601, the plaintiff was selling the lemon juice since
1956 in a plastic container under the name JIF. The
defendants who also were selling lemon juice, in bottle
sought to introduce lemon shape container, which was
challenged by the plaintiff alleging passing off. The
trial Judge held that passing off had been established.
The defendants filed an appeal against the order of the
trial Judge. While dismissing the appeal, the Court of
Appeal observed that even assuming that the colour
CS(OS)No. 1355/2006 Page 15 of 23
and shape of the container were to be regarded ashaving a function to perform (by indicating its
contents) that does not preclude the plaintiff from
having acquired the exclusive right to the particular
get up of their JIF lemons, including their colour and
shape.
In Yale & Towne Mfg. Co. vs. Alder, 1907 US
Appeals Lexies 4499, it was found that the defendant
had copied, manufactured and sold a padlock
marketed by the plaintiff. Though many features of
plaintiff‟s padlock were not original and subject to
appropriation, the defendant was the first to assemble
them in a form in which its padlock was substantially
identical with that of the plaintiff. The Court felt that
this would lead customers into believing that they were
buying plaintiff‟s padlock and, therefore, defendant‟s
apparent purpose was to intentionally and deliberately
extend his trade with retail dealers at the expense of
plaintiff‟s trade by furnishing them with a padlock at
a lower price which could be sold to the customers as
plaintiff‟s padlock. In the case before this Court, the
lighter which defendant No.4 sold to the investigator
CS(OS)No. 1355/2006 Page 16 of 23
appointed by the plaintiff company appears to beidentical to that of the plaintiff having no visible
distinguishing feature in its shape or design.
Therefore, the case of the plaintiff company stands on
a stronger footing.
In George G. Fox Company versus Charles F.
Hathaway & Another, 1908 Mass Lexis 791, the
plaintiff‟s loaves of bread were of a size, shape, colour
and condition of surface that gave them a peculiar
visible appearance which had come to be recognized by
customers in connection with the name, as indicating
the place of manufacturing and the quality of the
bread. The defendant began to manufacture and sell
bread in loaves of the same size, shape, colour and
general visual appearance as of the plaintiff. It was
held that the defendant intended to take advantage of
the reputation which the plaintiff had built up, by
selling an imitation of its loaves.
10. It has come in evidence that the plaintiff-company
has been selling lighters bearing the trademark ZIPPO and
having a unique 3-dimensional shape in India through
various channels. The plaintiff-company has been selling
CS(OS)No. 1355/2006 Page 17 of 23
this lighter in India through various authorized retailers.
The plaintiff-company has also been advertizing its lighters
in India in various magazines and has been incurring
substantial expenditure on advertising its product in India.
Defendant No. 4, obviously, wants to encash upon the
goodwill which the lighters of the plaintiff-company enjoy in
the market by copying not only the word mark ZIPPO, but
also the shape of the product of the plaintiff-company.
Defendant No. 4 has no right to use the trademark ZIPPO
and/or the 3-dimensional shape of the lighter of the
plaintiff-company. By using the name ZIPPO and/or the 3-
dimensional shape of the lighter of the plaintiff-company,
defendant No.4 is trying to pass off his goods as those of the
plaintiff. If defendant No. 4 is not restrained from using the
word mark ZIPPO and the 3-dimensional shape of the
lighter of the plaintiff-company, the customer may purchase
the product of defendant No. 4 under a mistaken belief that
he was purchasing the reputed product of the plaintiff-
company. On seeing a lighter bearing the trademark ZIPPO
and/or on having a 3-dimensional shape identical to that of
the product of the plaintiff-company, the customer may
form a bona fide impression that either this is the genuine
CS(OS)No. 1355/2006 Page 18 of 23
product of the plaintiff-company or it has been
manufactured in collaboration and/or under licence from it
and, therefore, was likely to be a quality product, for which
he was paying a premium price. If the quality of the
product of defendant No. 4 is not found to be as good as the
quality of the product of the plaintiff-company, the
customer, who purchases the product of defendant No. 4,
may form an impression that the quality of the lighters of
the plaintiff-company has gone down and is no more the
quality for which the lighters of the plaintiff-company is
known. If it so happens, that may not only prejudicially
affect the financial interest of the plaintiff-company, but
may also tarnish the reputation which the brand ZIPPO
enjoys in the market, particularly in respect of cigarettes
lighters. The sale of an inferior product under the brand
name ZIPPO and/or having a 3-dimensional shape identical
to that of the lighter of the plaintiff-company may also harm
the interest of the consumer who may be paying a higher
price for the premium product of the plaintiff-company and
who despite paying that premium price, may be saddled
with an inferior product.
11. The plaintiff has thus been able to make out a case
CS(OS)No. 1355/2006 Page 19 of 23
of infringement as well as passing off. Even if I proceed on
the assumption that registration of the three dimensional
device vide registration No.714368 is not the registration of
the shape of the lighter depicted on the certificate but is
registration only of its pictorial representation, it would still
be a case of infringement on account of use of the word
mark ZIPPO on the lighter which defendant No.4 sold to
Mr.J.P.Sharma and will also be a case of passing off on
account of the shape of the product which defendant No.4
sold to Mr. J.P.Sharma being identical to the unique shape
of the lighters being sold by the plaintiff company almost
throughout the world including India.
12. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent
injunction from selling, distributing or marketing the lighter
under the trademark ZIPPO and/or having a 3-dimensional
shape identical or similar that of the lighter of the plaintiff-
company, as is depicted on the Registration No.
714368, issued by Registrar of Trademarks to the plaintiff-
company.
13. Coming to damages, though plaintiff has not
proved the actual damages suffered by it on account of sale
CS(OS)No. 1355/2006 Page 20 of 23
of lighters by defendant No. 4 under the brand name ZIPPO
and/or having the 3-dimensional shape identical to that of
the product of the plaintiff-company, it is definitely open to
this Court to award punitive damages.
As observed by this Court in Time Incorporated v.
Lokesh Srivastava & Anr., 2005 (30) PTC 3 (Del), punitive
damages are founded on the philosophy of corrective justice
and are meant to send signal to the wrong doers that the
law does not take a breach by them as a matter between
rival parties but is also concerned about those also who are
not party to the lis but suffer on account of the breach of
law on the part of wrong doer. As held by this Court in
Hero Honda Motors Ltd. V. Shree Assuramji Scooters,
2006 (32) PTC 117 (Del), this Court noticing that in a case
where the defendant chooses to stay away from the
proceedings of the Court, punitive damages need to be
awarded, since otherwise the defendant, who appears in the
Court and submits its account books would be liable for
damages whereas a party which chooses to stay away from
the Court proceedings would escape the liability on account
of the failure of the availability of account books. In fact,
punitive damages are appropriate relief where on account of
CS(OS)No. 1355/2006 Page 21 of 23
absence of the defendant exact figure of the sale made and
profit earned by him by infringing the trademark of the
plaintiff and/or passing off his goods as those of the plaintiff
cannot be ascertained. The Courts also take into
consideration the fact that a lot of time and money is spent
by trademark owners in litigation against those who infringe
the trademark and try to encash upon the goodwill and
reputation of other brands by passing off their goods and
services as those of others. Award of punitive damages,
therefore, describes dishonesty and curbs tendency to gain
an unfair advantage by infringement of the legal rights of
others. Failure of the Court to award punitive damages is
likely to encourage unscrupulous persons actuated by
dishonest intention, to use the trademarks of others and
encash upon their goodwill and reputation which they have
built with years of hard work and labour. I, therefore,
award punitive damages amounting to Rs 5 lakh in favour
of the plaintiff-company and against defendant No. 4.
ORDER
A decree for permanent injunction is hereby
passed restraining defendant No.4 – Vinod Sachdeva from
selling, distributing or marketing lighters under the trade
CS(OS)No. 1355/2006 Page 22 of 23
mark “ZIPPO” and/or having a three dimensional shape
identical or similar to that of the lighter of the plaintiff
company as is depicted on the registration certificate
No.486145, issued by Registrar of Trade Mark, to the
plaintiff company. A decree for recovery of Rs.5 lacs is also
passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant No.4.
The plaintiff will be entitled to pendente lite and future
interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of
damages. The plaintiff will also be entitled to proportionate
cost of the suit. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
there shall be no order as to costs.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
(V.K. JAIN)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 31, 2011
bg/vn/’sn’
CS(OS)No. 1355/2006 Page 23 of 23
