16 breaks the connection between the first and last syllables. When MAX is excluded from both marks ZE and ZETO must be compared. They are different but this difference becomes less pronounced when MAX in both is considered. ZE and MAX are indeed the dominant elements of the two names. ZE is often found in Lisinopril products on the market eg ZESTORETIC, ZESTOZIDE AND ZESTRIL, which are markedly different from both ZEMAX and ZETOMAX not least because the prefix ZE is pronounced differently. In the case of the other names mentioned it is pronounced with a short ‘e’, whereas in ZEMAX and ZETOMAX the ‘e’ is long. The latter two are markedly similar with both having the same prefix, ZE, and the same suffix, MAX. ZEMAX and ZETOMAX are indeed the only two marks of the 128 on the register beginning with ZE and ending in MAX. There is also a similarity in the appearance of the two marks. When their sounds are compared there is also a likelihood of confusion. Their pronunciation is similar, the TO in ZETOMAX being pronounced softly. [32] A patient, and perhaps also a professional, who knows only the one word and has an imperfect recollection of it is likely to be mistaken. One must make allowance for imperfect recollection and the effect of careless pronunciation rather than comparing the two words letter by letter or syllable by syllable.21 But looking at the two marks globally and appreciating their similarities the overall impression is that they are so similar as to be confusing. To my mind Adcock has succeeded in showing that a substantial number of consumers would be likely to be confused and deceived by the similarity between the marks ZEMAX and ZETOMAX. [33] It follows that the appeal should succeed. The following order is made: 1 The appeal is upheld with costs. 2 The order of the court below is set aside and replaced with the following order: ‘(a) The second respondent is directed to remove trade mark 2004/05322 ZEMAX in class 5 from the register of trade marks in respect of the goods for which it is registered; 21 Aristoc Ltd v Rysta Ltd & another 1945 AC 68 (HL) at 85-86; [1945] 1 All ER 34 (HL) at 38-9 (per Viscount Maughan).