Bombay High Court
M/S.Goldgem Overseas vs Flawless Diamond (India) Ltd. ... on 7 January, 2009
Author: Roshan Dalvi
Bench: Roshan Dalvi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.465 7 OF 200 7
IN
SUIT NO.337 2 OF 200 7
M/s.Goldgem Overseas ...Plaintiff
Vs.
Flawless Diamond (India) Ltd. ...Defenda nt
Mr.V.R . Dhond with Mr.Ashish Kamat
for Plaintiff
Mr.D.D . Madon with Mr. S.N. Kantawala
with Ms. Jyoti Ghag i/b. Thakore Jariwala Asso., for Defenda nt
CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.
DATED: 7 TH JANUARY, 200 9
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. The Plaintiff has sued the Defenda nt upon for infringement of his registered tradem ar k and for the act of passing off the said mark. Both the parties are in the business inter alia of diamond jewellery. Both claim to use the tradem a r k "AUM" in respect of their product s, which are jewellery items. The goods of both the parties which essentially fall under the aforesaid mark are sold in retail outlets. It is the case of the Plaintiff that there is identity of business, goods as well as customers called " The Triple Identity " .
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:12:53 ::: 22. How and when both the parties came to use and apply the said mark are matters of admitted facts and documented records which need to be noted at the outset:-
1. The Defenda nt has been in busines s of jewellery since last 17 years. He has exhibited his product s in various outlets and show- rooms.
2. The Plaintiff adopted the tradem ar k "AUM" for his products since May, 2000.
3. The Plaintiff applied for and obtained registration of his tradema r k "AUM" in April 2003.
4. The parties had a certain meeting in April, 2006.
5. The Defenda nt applied for registration of his tradem a rk on 2 nd Ju ne 2006. His tradem ar k has yet not been registered. He has commenced use of the tradem a rk since the year 2006 itself. This is reflected in his ann u al report of the year 2006- 2007, which is absent in the ann u al report of the preceding year 2005- 2006.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:12:53 ::: 3
3. Upon these admitted facts Mr. Dhond on behalf of the Plaintiff contends that since the Plaintiff's use of his tradema rk pre- dates that of the Defenda nt by six years and his registration pre- dates the use by the Defenda nt by three years, the Defenda nt's use is impermissible in law. The Plaintiff also contend s that since the Defenda nt had knowledge of the Plaintiff's registered tradem ar k prior to his application for registration of the same tradem a rk, his registration cannot be granted and the use by the Defendant of the mark even prior to the registration being granted is dishonest and malafide, it having been made despite knowledge of the Plaintiff's mark.
4. An intriguing aspect has been shown by the Plaintiff to impute knowledge of the mark upon the Defenda nt. In paragrap h 14 of the plaint, the Plaintiff has contended that the Defenda nt wanted to purcha se the Plaintiff's mark, and therefore, parties had a meeting to settle the terms of purcha se. The Defenda n t has denied the purpose of meeting, but not the factum of the meeting. The Defenda n t states that it was for business talks. The parties are competitors dealing in the same product. They are unlikely to have business talks, the specifications of which are not shown. The Defenda nt's Director's father is a Jain by Religion. He had taken Diksha as per the tenets of Jainism.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:12:53 ::: 4He has been conferred the title of Acharya Maharaj. His name is Uttamch a n dji. He is, therefore, known as Acharya Uttamch a n dji Maharaj, a fact set out by the Plaintiff in the plaint itself. His initials are A.U.M . Regular business talks alone would not reveal this intrinsic personal fact to the Plaintiff. Hence, the meeting averred by the Plaintiff must be taken to be for the purpose which is also averred by him.
5. The meeting not withsta n di ng, and not having fructified in any agreement or settlement, the Defendan t commenced his use of the mark "AUM" in that year itself as evidenced by the aforesaid two ann u al reports - the first of which does not show the mark and the second of which shows it on each page of the report as well as in colour on the last cover page.
Since the Defenda nt's application for registration of his tradema rk is in Ju ne 2006, it is seen that it has been made after the admitted talks, business or otherwise, in April 2006 and the use soon thereafter without waiting for the registration being granted.
6. The tradema r k consists of the aforesaid three alphabets A U M as its most prominent part. The Defenda nt's mark further shows the expression AUM in Sanscrit script denoted by the num ber "3" in English. Below the said mark the Defenda nt further uses the expression "Diamond Jewellery " .
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:12:53 ::: 5The Plaintiff's mark is in simple alphabet font "AUM" below which in almost illegible print is the expression "Wear your mystique " . The expression below the mark "AUM" is not a part of the Plaintiff's registered tradem a rk. The Plaintiff has not contended that that expression is used by the Defenda nt or that it cannot be used. Only the word "AUM" is the mark craved by both the parties. The Defenda n t's mark is not only visually, alphabetically, Struct u r ally, but also phonetically identical. It is only styled differently. The English word is in cursive font. The Sanscrit ig version represented by the English number "3" is a mere arithmetical figure. It is the phonetical expression of the Sanscrit term alongside the English script.
7. Such being the facts, it would have to be seen whether the same mark "AUM", if used by the Plaintiff and by the Defenda nt as they have done, would constitute infringement of the Plaintiff's registered tradema r k.
8. In the case of Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma Vs. Navaratna Pharmac eu t i c al Laboratories A.I.R . 196 5 S.C. 98 0 (V 52 C 15 7) at 990 . The parameters of infringement action are laid down which have been followed since making it the most settled preposition of the law relating to the basics of the infringement actions. The relevant portions in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:12:53 ::: 6 paragrap h s 28 and 29 of the judgment run thus:-
"28 . ..... In an action for infringem e n t the Plaintiff must no doubt, make out that the use of the Defendan t's mark is likely to deceive, but where the similarity between the Plaintiff's and the Defendan t's mark is so close either visually, phon eti cally or otherwis e and the Court reache s the conclusio n that there is an imitati on , no further eviden c e is required to establish that the Plaintiff's rights are violated. Expressed in anoth er way, if the esse n t ial features of the trade mark of the Plaintiff have been adopted by the Defendan t, the fact that the get- up, packing and other writing or marks on the goods or on the packet s in which he offers his goods for sale show marked differenc e s , or indicat e clearly a trade origin different from that of the registered proprietor of the mark would be immat erial; whereas in the case of passing off, the defendan t may escape liability if he can show that the added matt er is sufficien t to distingui sh his goods from thos e of the Plaintiff.
29 . Where the two marks are identi cal no further questi o n s arise; for then the infringem e n t is made out. When the two marks are not identical, the Plaintiff would have to establish that the mark used by the Defendant so nearly resembles the Plaintiff's regist ered trade mark as is likely to deceiv e or cause confusi on in relation to goods in respect of which it is registered."
Hence, since the Plaintiff's action in this case is based upon infringement of registered tradema r k, the para meter s to be considered by the Court are simple once the imitation ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:12:53 ::: 7 of the mark is seen . In this case the essential features of the Plaintiff's mark are the letters "AUM" which are adopted by the Defenda nt. The further artistics and visuals in the Defenda nt's tradema rk is of no conseque nce. There is no such distinction between the two marks made out by the added matter as would be so frequently different as to distinguish the Plaintiff's goods from that of the Defenda nt s. In fact the marks are identical, except for a different font visually. Even in another script they are identical phonetically. They more than resemble the Plaintiff's mark.
Hence the action for infringement poses no difficulty.
9. The Plaintiff's action is also for passing off. That is a common law remedy under the tort of deceit. For such an action even the use by the Defenda nt of the mark is not essential. If the getup is the same, the action in tort would lie. However, in this case as in many others since the action is for infringement as well as passing off the imitations by the Defenda nt must be seen as much as the use of the mark. In the case of Kaviraj Pandit (supra) the name Navratna Phar mace u tical Laboratories and Navratna Pharmacy came up for consideration as to whether they were an imitation meant to deceive. Though the words were descriptive, it was held that the phonetic expression could be tending to deceive, if it was a sufficient imitation. It was explained how ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:12:53 ::: 8 an imitation of a mark can be considered in paragrap h 29 thus:-
"This has neces s arily to be ascertain ed by a compariso n of the two marks - the degree of resemblanc e which is nece s s ary to exist to cause decep ti o n not being capable of definition by laying down objectiv e standards. The persons who would be deceiv e d are, of course, the purchas ers of the goods and it is the likelihood of their being deceiv ed that is the subject of consideration . The resemblanc e may be phone t i c, visual or in the basic idea represen t e d by the Plaintiff's mark. The purpose of the comparison is for determini ng wheth er the essen t i al features of the Plaintiff's trade mark are to be found in that use by the Defendan t. The identificati on of the essen t i al features of the mark is in esse n c e a question of fact and depend s on the judgme n t of the Court based on the eviden c e led before it as regards the usage of the trade. It should, however, be borne in mind that the object of the enquiry in ultimat e analysis is wheth er the mark used by the Defendan t as a whole is decep ti vely similar to that of the regist ered mark of the Plaintiff."
Since the resembla nce may be either visual or phonetic the mark "AUM" in English as well as the phonetics in the Sanscrit script would both be covered as being deceptively similar.
10. Similarly in the case of Amritdhara Pharmacy Vs. Satya Deo Gupta 19 6 3 S.C. 449 (V 50 C 63) at page 453 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:12:53 ::: 9 the explanation of Parkar, J in Re Pianoti s t Co's applicatio n (190 6) 23 RPC 774 was set out thus:
"You must take the two words. You must judge them, both by their look and by their sound. You must consider the goods to which they are to be applied. You must consider the nature and kind of custo m er who would be likely to buy thos e goods. In fact you must consider all the surrounding circum s t a n c e s; and you must further consid er what is likely to happen if each of thos e trade marks is used in a normal way as a trade mark for the goods of the respec tiv e owners of the marks."
For deceptiv e resemblan c e two important questio n s are : (1) who are the persons whom the rese mblan c e must be likely to deceive or confus e, and (2) what rules of comparison are to be adopted in judging wheth er such resemblan c e exist s ?"
11. It was held that the two terms Amritdhara and Laksh m a n d h ara had an overall similarity. It would deceive or cause confusion in a man of average intelligence with imperfect recollection who would not consider the etymology of the words, but go merely by the similarity of the two names. Hence it was observed that even if a critical comparison would disclose some points of differences in the two marks, it would be the overall similarity of the concept which must be considered as the one tending to deceive.
The two words "AUM" being in nearly identical fonts as well as phonetically identical lend themselves to confusion if ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:12:53 ::: 10 not deception.
12. In the case of Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. J.P.& Co., Mysore (197 2) 1 SCC 618 which was an infringement action, upon considering the wrappers of two biscuit packets, the test of the propensity to deceive was laid down by the Supreme Court. In that case two pictures depicting two scenes of village life were meticulously examined by the High Court setting out points of dissimilarity which could be undert a ke n not by a passing ig eye but by microscopic examination of the wrappers of the product. The various intricate and even insignificant aspects of dissimilarities were meticulously set out upon a scientific comparison to see the dissimilarities which outnu m be red the similarities.
The Supreme Court observed that the general getup of the two wrappers were more or less similar. After setting out the dictum contained in Kerly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names (9 th editio n, Paragraph 838) . The Supreme Court held in paragrap h 9 of the judgment thus:-
" It is therefore clear that in order to come to the conclu si o n wheth er one mark is decep ti v ely similar to anoth er, the broad and essen ti al features of the two are to be considered. They should not be placed side by side to find out if there are any differenc e s in the design and if so, wheth er they are of such charact er as to preven t one design from ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:12:53 ::: 11 being mistak e n for the other. It would be enough if the impugned mark bears such an overall similarity to the registered mark as would be likely to mislead a person usually dealing with one to accep t the other if offered to him".
"Anyone in our opinion who has a look at one of the packet s today may easily mistak e the other if shown on anoth er day as being the same article which he had seen before. If one was not careful enough to note the peculiar features of the wrapper on the plaintiffs' goods, he might easily mistake the defendan t s' wrapper for the plaintiffs' if shown to him some time after he had seen the plaintiffs'.
After all, an ordinary purchas er is not gifted with the powers of observati on of a Sherlock Holme s".
In this case also the two marks containing the same alphabet s need not be placed side by side. They must be considered with the view point of "the main idea left on the mind" by both of them. As observed by Kerly, a person seeing one mark and not having seen the two side by side could well be deceived that the diamond jewellery is of the same seller. Persons seeing the marks would not be able to remember the exact detail of the Defendant's imitation or the Plaintiff's simplicity by the "General impressi o n s or by some significan t detail then by photographic recollecti on of the whole" .
13. In the case of Cadila Health Care Ltd. Vs. Cadila ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:12:53 ::: 12 Pharmaceu t i c al s Ltd. (200 1) 5 SCC 73 . The similarities between the names "Falcigo" and "Falcitab" were considered - the dissimilarities, if any, to be ignored. It was observed in that judgment that the phonetic expression is more importa nt specially for drugs of foreign companies bearing foreign names which are read and understood by the Indian public of average knowledge by such expressions and pronu nciations. Considering a case of Amritdhara Pharmaceu t i c al Laboratories (supra) as also the case of Corn Product s Refining ig Company Vs. Shangrila Food Product s Ltd. A..R. 196 0 , S.C. 142 which referred to two products "Gluvita" and "Glucovita", it was held that the phonetic expressions were likely to deceive. Hence it was held that only the overall similarity of the composite word is to be regarded. Considering the case of Kaviraj Pandit (supra) for the test of comparison of two marks it was held that the mark, if copied phonetically, visually or in its basic idea, can be successfully challenged.
14. Earlier cases which considered words such as Aristoc / Rysta in Aristo c Ltd. Vs. Rysta Ltd., 962 R P C 65 being phonetically similar, the words "Picnic / P i k n i k" in S.M.Dye ce m Ltd. Vs. Cadbury (India) Ltd. (200 0) 5 SCC 57 3 ,the mark "Cherish / C h eri" in Indch e m i e Health Specialiti e s Pvt. Ltd Vs. Naxpar Labs Pvt. Ltd. 200 2 (24) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:12:53 ::: 13 PTC 34 1 (Bom) (DB) were similarly held to have the propensity to confuse and deceive. In those judgment s the factors required to be considered in an action for passing off an unregistered tradem ar k were exclusively set out.
15. Keeping the principles of comparison laid down in the aforesaid judgment s in mind the two marks should not be seen together. They should be merely visualised; What would a prospective purcha ser think when he sees the Defenda nt's posters after seeing the Plaintiff's tradem ar k ? The purch a ser is unlikely to discern the difference merely because of the addition of the number "3" . He would confuse himself to think that the diamonds advertised by the Defenda nt is the same as the diamonds advertised by the Plaintiff. Since this is an infringement action, we are not concerned with whose sales would increase and why. We are more concerned with the confusion that would be caused in the minds of the purcha se rs to mistake the products of one for that of another. It is that confusion which must be avoided by the Court. It may be mentioned that though this is an action in passing off also,the main basis of the Plaintiff's claim is upon infringement of a registered tradema r k. The two marks in this case are unmista k a bly similar.
16. It is contended on behalf of the Defenda nt that it ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:12:53 ::: 14 contains a generic expression. It is equivalent to term "God"
which is incapable of registration as a Trademar k. It may be mentioned that that stage has long passed. Both the parties have sought to register the mark and it does not allow for the Defenda nt to contend that he should not have registered what he proceeded to do. Mr. Madon drew my attention to the case of Rupee Gains Tele- Times Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rupeea Times(0 1 . 0 9 . 1 9 9 5 DELHC),19 9 5 (35) D R J 30 with regard to generic words which is not applicable in view of the conduct of both the parties in seeking to register their respective Trademark s.
17. Mr. Madon contended that it is a class of persons who are the customers which would largely matter in considering the deceptive angle. He drew my attention to the case of L'oreal India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Henkel Marketing India Ltd. 20 0 5( 6) C.R. 77 , which dealt with purcha se r s in cosmetics business. It was observed in paragrap h 22 of the judgment that the persons buying elitist product s were not expected to purcha se them without reading the tradem ar k prominently displayed on the trade- dress and hence the Defenda nt could not seek to have such Trade address as would lead to a possibility of confusion. However, in that case the dissimilarities of the getup of the products were considered in the colour scheme of the trade dress and the depiction of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:12:53 ::: 15 the Model on the label, an aspect which the Supreme Court in the case of Parle Product s (supra) had directed to desist from.
18. Mr. Madon argued that the class of customers who purcha se diamond jewellery would be the upper crust of the Society who would be required to pay large amou nt s for purcha se of a single item. They would be unlikely to be swayed by a mark or a label depicting the name of another seller of the same products.
ig He drew an analogy for such
purcha se to the purcha ser s of cars and referred to the
judgment of the Supreme Court of Judicat u re - Court of Appeal of the Royal Courts of Justice in the case of LANCER TRADE MARK APPLICATION, 198 7 RCC 303 . An application to register "Lancer" as a Tradema rk was opposed by the owner of the earlier registration "Lancia" - The Chancery Court initially observed at page 318 that the Motoring public was very well informed and well able to distinguish the two marks. The reasoning given for such exercise was that the vehicles were "expens iv e item s and the potential purchas er will study the market carefully before parting with the thousand s of pounds which a new car will cost". It was observed that "the discerning buyer of the cars would immediat el y pick out the differenc e s between the two marks. Even the Appeal Court in Appeal ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:12:53 ::: 16 similarly observed at page 325 of the judgment "Its purchase will usually be consid ered with som e care, and will be assist ed in a compe t i t iv e market by an abundan c e of brochure literature" .
19. Alas the purch a se of diamond jewellery is a completely different ballgame. There is no literat ure for underst a n di ng the quality and carats of the diamonds as is in the case of the car industry. Diamond s are dicey. They are essentially only orname n t al. Their intrinsic value is not known to a majority of purch a ser s. The difference between real diamonds and what are publicly called American diamond s is never appare nt. It cannot be ascertained and understood except by Gemologists. Semi- precious stones such as zircons are much the same in appear a nce. In fact even cut glass may reflect no difference to several uninformed though rich buyers. The purcha se r may often require to buy a tiny item as an importa nt and lasting gift. Even purch a se for oneself would be for a life-time. The tarnishing of the diamonds may be a malaise which would present itself much later. Unlike cars, a purcha ser of diamonds would rather go by a brand name. The comparison merely on account of the class of customer s considering the monetary paying power would be a shallow perspective. The analogy applied in the case of Lancer Trade Mark (supra) where buyers can and do ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:12:53 ::: 17 discus s the pros and cons of the models from the experience of previous users would not be applicable in the case of diamonds which would be a fine gift or a stat u s symbol left in dark vaults where their shine may deteriorate with age, if it is of any inferior quality.
20. Mr.Madon's analogy with the adoption of names in case of five-star hotel business shown in the case of Bharat Hotels Limited vs. Unison Hotels Limited 200 4( 2 8) P T C 404 (Delhi) is much in the same light. Several hotels with prefix "GRAND", came up for consideration. It was observed that when there was prior use of the said word for a hotel chain or for another new hotel with or without the suffix, the Plaintiff would be entitled to protection of his mark . In that case prior use was not seen and the use of the words "The Grand" by the Defendant was held permissible as the Plaintiff had not acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning in respect of the name of the hotel.
21. Considering the two marks, the registered tradema rk of the Plaintiff and the yet unregistered tradema r k of the Defenda nt, Mr. Madon argued that at best the letters "AUM" cannot be used by the Defendant. But the other distinct expression in the tradema r k being the number "3" , which is the Sanskrit script of the word "AUM" and the words ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:12:53 ::: 18 diamond jewellery cannot be prohibited. The Plaintiff takes no exceptance to the words diamond jewellery . However, the expression denoted by number "3" forms a part of the entire getup of the Defenda nt together with its phonetics. Since no part of it is yet registered and since registration would prima facie be seen to be likely to be refused in view of the Plaintiff's registered mark, the entire of the expression would fall within the mischief of an infringement action. The added matter which Mr. Madon seeks to have excepted from the injunction order is, therefore, required to be considered.
22. Halsbury's laws of England IV Edition Volume 48 in paragrap h 89 lays down precisely the para meters of such added matter thus :-
"89 . Irrelevan c e of added matt er; comparison with passing off . As the registration of a trade mark gives an exclu siv e right to its use, it is no defenc e for a defendan t who has used the registered mark or its essen t ial features to claim to have added additional words or matt er in order to negative confusio n .
... The comparison is between what the defenda nt actually does (ignoring matter added to the mark used by him) and any normal use of the plaintiff's mark comprised within the registration. Thus, in these respects, infringement rights are wider than rights in connection with passing off, where the comparison is between what the defenda nt does ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:12:53 ::: 19 as a whole and what the plaintiff has done as a whole".
23. The Defenda nt has shown extensive sale in India and abroad for years even prior to the use of the mark "AUM" by them as can be seen from the ann u al reports of prior years produced by the Defenda nt. Though these represent their consolidated turnover, in India and abroad, the Plaintiff's action is only with regard to their retail trade in India in their various outlets and showrooms. The Defendant has prided itself on the length of its business - the last 17 years- well before the Plaintiff set his foot into it. The Defenda nt has accordingly shown its worth in the market even without the use of the mark "AUM" . Conseque ntly upon the Defenda nt's case itself the real necessity of the use of the mark is not seen. Indeed as has been pointed out by the Plaintiff in paragrap h 14 of the plaint itself, a fact which is not disputed by the Defenda nt, that it is only case of the sentiment al nexus between the expression "AUM" and the name of the father of the Defendant's Director, that the Defenda nt is keen on using the tradem ar k since the year 2006.
24. It may be mentioned that the Plaintiff has strangely sought to sell his mark not only to the Defenda n t, but to others as is his case in paragrap h 17 of the plaint. It may be that the Plaintiff only seeks to make money from his ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:12:53 ::: 20 tradema rk already registered not very long ago. One does not hear of cases of sale of tradem a r k. Genuine Tradem ar ks, are used as one's own distinguis h a ble mark in business.
They are not registered for sale. The Plaintiff's case however, is different. A lack of complete bonafides is reflected. Paragrap h 13 of the plaint shows that the "Plaintiff has been time and again receiving " feelers " from various parties to purcha se his tradem ar k. This is not what a tradem ar k owner in any market normally expects. One wonders how only the Plaintiff could make a sale of his own tradem ar k.
Nevertheless, a trans action of the kind between the Plaintiff and the Defenda nt is prima facie seen to have transpired, given the above unique facts of this case. Since that trans action has not materialised, stricto senso the Defenda nt's right to use the Plaintiff's registered tradem ar k is not established.
25. Mr. Madon contended that the Plaintiff is a small time business m a n ; the Defenda nt is a big time settled diamond mercha n t. The sales of the parties are highly unequ al, the Defenda nt's being far more than that of the Plaintiff's. The export trade of the Defenda nt is similarly large. The Plaintiff carries on busines s from his residence, whereas the Defenda nt has various show- rooms and outlets aside from its registered office. All these aspects could have been ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:12:53 ::: 21 considered in an action for passing off simplicitor, if the Plaintiff's tradem ar k was not registered. Since the Plaintiff's action is essentially on infringement of the tradema r k "AUM", for prevention of the use of the said tradema rk or any other deceptively similar name, mark, word or style on jewellery products, the Defenda n t's admitted use brings his case within the mischief of the Trademark s Act.
26. Hence, a case for grant of injunction is made out.
27. The Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer
(b).
28. The Defenda nt shall not use the mark "AUM" or any other deceptively similar mark, name, word or style as a part of the Defendant's jewellery product s.
(SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:12:53 :::