Section 27(2) Trade Marks Act 1999 PRESERVES the common-law action of PASSING OFF. The classic elements of passing off in Reckitt & Colman v. Borden (the JIF lemon case, [1990] 1 WLR 491) are:

1. Section 27(2) Trade Marks Act 1999: 'Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to affect rights of action against any person for PASSING OFF goods or services as the goods of another person or as services provided by another person, or the remedies in respect thereof.' 2. Reckitt & Colman v. Borden (1990) UK House of Lords laid down the 'classic trinity' for passing off: (i) GOODWILL — reputation of claimant; (ii) MISREPRESENTATION — express or implied by defendant; (iii) DAMAGE — actual or likely. 3. The Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals, (2001) 5 SCC 73 (Falcigo case) applied the same test, with additional factors for medicinal marks. 4. Passing off does not require trademark registration — it is a common-law tort based on reputation. 5. Hence option A is correct. _Source: Patents Act 1970 / Copyright Act 1957 / Trade Marks Act 1999 (Bare Acts, IPIndia portal + Copyright Office) — Trade Marks Act 1999, Section 27(2); Reckitt & Colman v. Borden, [1990] 1 WLR 491 (UK); Cadila Health Care v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals, (2001) 5 SCC 73_