https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160554 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. en-us Tue, 29 Aug 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Aug 2014 09:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160554 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 29 Aug 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160554