Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-18-1906
Reported in : (1906)ILR29Mad569
Arnold White, C.J.1. The first point raised on behalf of the petitioner in this case was, assuming the prosecution evidence to be true, that an offence under Section 480 of the Indian Penal Code had not M been made out. I am of opinion that if the petitioner sold to a customer soap which was not manufactured by Pears in a box E upon which the name of Pears appeared as a maker of soap, he used a box with a mark thereon in a manner reasonably calculated to cause it to be believed that the soap contained in the box so marked was manufactured by Pears, and by so doing, he used a false trademark and was guilty of an offence under the section. The argument that it had not been shown that Pears had acquired a trademark, in the sense in which the word is used in the English Patents, Designs and Trademarks Acts, in the design which is printed on the box in which the soap was sold, is beside the point. Under Section 478 of the Indian Penal Code, 'Trademark' includes any trademark which is regist...
Tag this Judgment!