A registrable trademark must be able to differentiate between the products or services of one person and those of another. In the age of technology the proprietor of a registered trade mark has to take some safeguards to

Answer 3(d) The question in whirlpool case was whether or not the respondents, who are not the registered owners of the 'whirlpool' trademark regarding washing machines, can continue their action for passing off against the registered proprietor of a trademark? Under Section 27(2) of Trade Marks Act, 1999 an action for passing off against registered user of trade mark is maintainable at the instance of a prior user of the same, similar or identical mark. Since such a remedy is available against the registered user of a trade mark, an interim injunction restraining him to use the mark can also be granted to make the remedy effective. The Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation observed that the trademark was previous to the appellants since 1937 that too in 65 countries where they have been in business. Whereas appellants had just applied for the trademark in 1986. The concept and principle on which passing off action is grounded is that a man is not to sell his own goods under the pretence that they are the goods of another man. Applying this principle and the reasons already stated we have prima facie come to the conclusion that the appellants have acquired reputation & goodwill in respect of its goods bearing trade mark 'WHIRLPOOL' in this country. Even though the appellants have no connection with the respondents, they are using the mark 'WHIRLPOOL' for their products. Prima facie it appears to us that buyers are likely to be deceived or confused as to the origin and source of the goods. They will believe that the product is manufactured by the respondents, an impression not founded in truth. The limitation will pass of as genuine. No one can be permitted to trade by deceiving or misleading the purchasers or to unauthorisedly divert to itself the reputation and goodwill of others.