GEOFFREY MANNERS AND COMPANY LTD. Vs. THE STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a judgment and order of the High Court at Bombay convicting the appellants under Section 6 of the Indian Merchandise Marks Act (hereafter referred to as the Act) and Section 486 of the Indian Penal Code, in respect of a toilet preparation described as "Anne French, cleansing milk" with a label affixed thereon. The relevant facts are these. The first appellant company is a private limited company, having its registered office in Bombay. Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 are the directors of the company. They were original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5. On June 7, 1949, Dr. Dhume, Deputy Director of Industries, Department of Industries, Bombay, filed a complaint against the three appellants and two other directors of the first appellant company alleging that amongst the articles manufactured in Bombay by the accused was a facial cream called Anne French Cleansing Milk which was sold by the accused in bottles with a label on which was printed:

(2.) AS regards the first appellant company, the position is this. It is not disputed that the company had manufactured in India the "cleansing milk" and had sold the same in bottles with the label in question. Sections 6 and 7 of the Act run as follows: - -

(3.) ON behalf of the company it was firstly argued that the description on the label does not necessarily convey that the contents of the bottles were manufactured in England. It was suggested that a trade mark may contain the name of a town or country, and a trade mark may be the trade mark of a manufacturer or of a dealer. It was, therefore, argued that the fact of an address being printed on a label does not amount to a description of the place in which the goods were made or produced. In our opinion, the question whether the description does or does not mean a statement of that kind is a question of fact depending on what is exactly stated in the document in question, the manner in which it is stated and also the goods in relation to which it has been stated. On such questions another judicial decision is hardly an authority as it is almost impossible to have the same facts in two cases. When evidence was given before the Magistrate no alternate suggestion was put forth on behalf of the accused and it was not suggested that any other construction was proper or even plausible. The contention that the address may be a part of the trade mark of the producer or a dealer depends on the facts proved in each case and in the absence of any evidence on record we are unable to take into consideration hypothetical questions which may arise on different facts. In our opinion, the High Court was right in its conclusion that the description "4 Old Bond St. London W1" printed on the label with the various things printed thereon when considered along with the fact that this is a toilet preparation, indirectly means a description as to the place and country in which the goods were made or produced. Unless, therefore, the first defendant company proved facts sufficient to bring its defence within one of the exceptions, it is guilty of an offence under Section 6 of the Act.