Counterfeit property mark and passing off proved where goods were sold to resemble the complainant's product.

The SC applied the distinction between a trade mark and a property mark, holding that a trade mark identifies source or quality, while a property mark denotes ownership of movable property. Reading the complaint as a whole, the common name, device, inscription, colour and packing, together with evidence that the accused sold an inferior scent to pass it off as the complainant's goods, showed an intention to make purchasers believe the goods belonged to the complainant. The loose use of the words "trade mark" in parts of the complaint did not matter, because the substance and proof established counterfeit property mark and passing off. The offences under sections 482 and 486 IPC were made out and the conviction was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint and evidence disclosed the offences of using a false property mark and selling goods marked with a counterfeit property mark, or only an of trade mark imitation.

Analysis: The distinction between a trade mark and a property mark was applied: a trade mark indicates the source or quality of goods, whereas a property mark denotes ownership of movable property. On the complaint as a whole, the use of the same name, device, inscription, colour and packing, together with the evidence that the accused's inferior scent was sold so as to pass as the complainant's goods, showed an intention to make purchasers believe that the goods belonged to the complainant. The use of the expression "trade mark" in parts of the complaint was treated as loose language, because the substance of the accusation and the proved facts pointed to counterfeit property mark and passing off of goods as the complainant's.

Conclusion: The complaint and evidence made out the offences under sections 482 and 486 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the conviction was properly restored.

---