( 288 )
Present : Drieberg J. .
SAHIB v. MUDALIYAR.150—P. C. Colombo, 46,858.
Trade Marks Ordinance—Meaning of word “ registered ”—Registrationin another country—Ordinance No. 16 of 1925, s. 64 (1) and' (2).When a person uses in Ceylon the word “ registered " in connectionwith a trade mark, which is not registered in terms of theTrade Marks Ordinance, No. 16 of 1925, he is guilty of an offenceunder Section 64 (1) of the Ordinance.
PPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate ofColombo.
Navaratnam, for accused, appellant.
Garvin, for complainant, respondent.
June 11, 1929. Drieberg J.—
The appellant appeals from a conviction under section 64 of theTrade Marks Ordinance, No. 15 of 1925. He sold sarongs on whichwas ffn oval and within it, from above downwards, the words“ Kalyani-Madras-Regd.” He had previously applied for registrationof this mark in Ceylon but his application was opposed and has notyet been decided. He claims that the mark is registered in India;there was no proof of this at the trial, but Mr. Navaratnam informedme that a certificate of registration by the Madras Chamber ofCommerce had been since received. Even if this mark was registeredin India it cannot affect the conviction.
It was contended for the a: pellant that the mark does notrepresent that it was registered in Ceylon, and that in connectionwith the word “ Madras ” above it, it could fairly be regarded asrepresenting that it was registered in Madras.
Under section 64 (1) a person commits an offence if he representsa mark as registered which is not so registered, “ registered ” forthe purposes of the Ordinance meaning that the mark is actuallyupon the register kept under the provisions of the Ordinance;by section 64 (2) a person is deemed to represent that a trade markis so registered if he uses the word “ registered ” in connection withthe trade mark. The words “ Kalyani,” which I am told is a placein Madras, and “ Madras ” may be merely to show the place ofmanufacture and cannot be regarded as necessarily qualifying theword “registered.” It has been held that when goods are soldin England with the word “ registered ” on the label, the naturalinterpretation is that the registration .was in England (WrightCrossly v. Dobbin & Co.1).
The appeal is dismissed.
‘ (1897) IS R. P. C. 21.