The law was clearly laid down in British Sugar Plc v. James Robertson & Sons Ltd. (1996) RPC 281 at 302, in a passage cited by MR JAMES, JACOB J. stated: "I have already described the evidence used to support the original registration. You have really no more than evidence of use. Now it is all too easy to be beguiled by such evidence. There is an unspoken and illogical assumption that use equals distinctiveness. The illogicality can be seen from an example. No matter how much a manufacturer made use of the word 'Soap' as a purported trade mark for Soap the word would not be distinctive of the goods. He could use fancy lettering as much he liked, whatever he did would not turn the word into a trade mark. Again, a manufacturer may coin a new word for a product and be able to show massive use by him alone of that word for the product. Nevertheless, the word is apt to be the name of the product not a mark." Also, In Paine & Co.‟s Trade Marks, (1893) 10 RPC 217 at p. 232, it was observed that "The purity of Register of Trade Marks is of much importance to trade in general, quite apart from the merits or demerits of particular litigants, and it is duty of the tribunal to see that no word not „adopted to distinguish‟ shall be put on the Register in the interest of other traders, wholesale and retail, and of the public. If this were not so, the large and wealthy firms
