8 preparations containing Lisinopril’. I will assume for present purposes that this is a proper case in which to limit the registration to only those goods if, indeed, there is no likelihood of confusion when applied to those goods. On the assumption that this is a proper case for the limitation of the registration of ZEMAX to the goods referred to I will consider whether the two marks are so similar as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion. [18] Cipla’s case in that regard is that there is no probability of confusion or deception arising between the marks when they are compared in the context of the specialized pharmaceutical market in which the two marks would then be employed. [19] Cipla relied on the approval of the name ZEMAX by the ‘naming committee’ of the Medicines Control Council. Section 9 of a document issued by the Council for general information deals with its ‘proprietary name policy’. In considering the safety of a product the Council is obliged to consider whether a proposed name ‘could potentially pose public health and safety concerns or if it may be misleading’. Public health considerations are said to be paramount ‘in determining whether a particular proprietary name may be used for a medicinal product’ (section 9). In section 9.1.6 it is provided that the proposed proprietary name ‘should not be liable to cause confusion in print, handwriting or speech with the proprietary name of another product.’ Where the name proposed is identical to or too similar to a name already approved the applicant must be advised. Any dispute, however, must be resolved between the parties and not by the Council (section 9.1.8). Cipla argued that, because no objection was made to registration of the name ZEMAX by the Council, it could be concluded that neither the ‘naming committee’ nor the Council considered that ZEMAX would be confused with ZETOMAX. This may well have been the view of the Council but its view is irrelevant and inadmissible for the purpose for which it was tendered. It is the function of the Registrar or the court to consider whether the trade marks ZEMAX and ZETOMAX are ‘so similar’ that their use ‘would be likely to deceive or cause confusion’. Section 9.3.1 of the document, in any event, recognises that ‘[t]he issue of whether a particular proprietary name may constitute an infringement of another entity’s intellectual property rights cannot be one of the Medicines Control Council’s concerns and is, therefore, not taken into account during consideration of the acceptability of a proposed proprietary name’.