According to him,the IPAB sought to rely upon 'computer programming' which is a 'service' enumerated in Class 42,without considering the distinction between a 'computer programme' and 'computer programming' and without noticing the entry 'computer' under Class 9 which falls within 'goods'.Learned counsel would submit that in examining the question of non-use under Section 46(1)(b),the IPAB failed to consider that the requisite use must be 'in relation to goods' under registration,which is extensively defined under Section 2(2)(b) of The 1958 Act