Skip to content

CS Executive · Economic, Commercial and Intellectual Property Laws · Law relating to Trade Marks

A shop owner in Pune is prosecuted under section 104 for having in possession for sale goods carrying a false trade mark. Which of the following would, if proved, relieve him of liability under that section?

He is relieved if he proves that, on demand by the prosecutor, he gave all the information in his power about the person from whom he obtained the goods. Low pricing, no complaint from the proprietor, or being a small trader are not statutory defences under section 104.

  1. AThat the goods were sold at a low price
  2. BThat on demand by the prosecutor he gave all the information in his power about the person from whom he obtained the goodsCorrect
  3. CThat the real proprietor never complained
  4. DThat he is a small trader with no registered business

Explanation

Section 104(b) excuses a person who, on demand by or on behalf of the prosecutor, gave all the information in his power about the supplier. Other defences are taking reasonable precautions with no reason to suspect, or otherwise acting innocently. Low price, lack of complaint or size of trade are not defences.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Law relating to Trade Marks shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Law relating to Trade MarksFree diagnostic mock

More Law relating to Trade Marks questions