deceive or cause confusion or otherwise, be disentitled to protection in a Court of Justice, or would be contrary to law or morality, or any scandalous design.” He further referred to the case of Arcadian Tobacco Co. Ltd —Vs- Sinclair 1933 15. L.R.K, and submitted that the question whether one mark resembles another one and is likely to deceive is a question for the tribunal, that is the Court and not the witnesses. He also submitted that proof of damages is not required in passing off cases. He relied on Parke Davis and Kerly‟s text book at page 838. In Parke Davis CRAWSHAW, J.A. relied on the case of Masengo —Vs- Daily Sketch and Sunday Graphic Ltd (U) (1948), 65 R.P.C 242 where the House of Lords quoted Kerly‟s at page 383 that: „Proof of damage is not in every case essential to enable the Plaintiff to maintain his action, for if he knows that the Defendant i acting so as to pass off goods as those of the Plaintiff which are that the Plaintiff‟s it will generally be assumed that the Plaintiff is thereby prevented from selling as many of the goods as he otherwise would.” In that case, his Lordship ended with the following conclusion: „I do not think the circumstances of the case negative this assumption, but rather that the actions of the Respondent Company are calculated to injure the Appellant Company.” I have had the benefit of seeing the two products produced in Court by the Plaintiff‟s counsel. I have also read the pleadings and the authorities cited by Mr. Mugenyi. Passing off is a common law tort. Its origins lie in the tort of deception. However, passing off does not now depend upon any fraudulent intent by the Defendant. In Perry —Vs- Truefit (1842) 6 Beav pg 66, the basic underlying principle of a passing off action was stated to be: „A man is not to sell his own goods under the pretence that they are the goods of another man „ Another summation was given by Lord Halsbury in the case of Reddaway (Frank) & Co. Ltd —Vs- 13