Section 6 requires that the applicant may be required to obtain preliminary advice from the registrar to whether the proposed trademark appears to the registrar to be inherently adapted to distinguish or capable of distinguishing goods or services of the proposed undertaking from those of other undertakings and the registrar shall advice accordingly. Then the applicant shall be required to apply for registration of the trademark and the registrar shall accept absolutely or with conditions or limitations under section 7 of the Act. Subsequently, the registrar shall cause the publication of the accepted trademark and the publication shall be for 60 days as per section 11. Needless to say, the purpose of this publication is to encourage anyone with a claim to or against the published trademark to object to the registration of the trademark. This is buttressed under section 12 (1) that provides for a person may, within the prescribed time from the date of publication of an application, give notice to the registrar of AN OBJECTION TO THE REGISTRATION. Therefore, mere acceptance by the registrar with or without conditions or limitations does not in itself determine the end of the registration process. The argument by the applicant does not suffice in the circumstances. Registration does not end at acceptance since it is a process with concurrent stages. Distinctiveness Section 9 (2) (a) defines distinctiveness to mean in the case of a trademark relating to goods, adapted in relation to the goods in respect of which the trademark is registered or proposed to be registered, to distinguish goods with which the owner of the trademark is or may be connected, in the course of trade, from goods in the case of which no connection subsists. In Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc (1999) RPC 117, it was noted that a distinctive mark is one that enables members of the public to distinguish the product or service that it designates from those which have a different trade origin and to conclude that the products and services that it is designated have been manufactured, marketed or supplied under the control of the owner who is responsible for the identity. The distinctive character of the earlier trade mark, and in particular its reputation, must be taken into account when determining whether the similarity between the goods or