Case No: OSA (CAD) 96 of 2021
Neutral Citation No: NA
Name of Hon'ble Court: Hon'ble High Court of Madras
Name of Hon'ble Judge: P.D.Audikesavalu , H.J.
Case Title:Ashique Exports (P) Ltd. Vs Suresh K.K.Trading as Shastha Industries and Others
The admissibility of photocopies of documents as evidence is a hotly debated topic in legal circles. In a recent case of trademark infringement and passing off, the Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the Plaintiff, stating that the Plaintiff had failed to prove its case as it had only submitted photocopies of documents.
the Trial Court found fault with the Plaintiff's choice of evidence, stating that mere photocopies would not suffice to prove the Plaintiff's case. The court emphasized that original documents were required to establish the authenticity and veracity of the evidence. The Defendant, taking advantage of this situation, produced original documents that purportedly proved its rightful use of the trademark. Consequently, the Trial Court dismissed the suit, leaving the Plaintiff with no choice but to file an appeal before the High Court.
This article explores the facts and the ratio of the case, shedding light on whether photocopies of documents are admissible in evidence.
THE SUBJECT MATTER JUDGEMENT UNDER CHALLENGE:
Appellant was the Plaintiff while Respondent was the Defendant in the subject matter Suit.
The subject matter order assailed in the Appeal proceeding was the order, which emanated from dismissal of suit by the Ld. Trial Court.
Since the Suit filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court, the subject matter Appeal was filed.
THE SUBJECT MATTER SUIT:
The Subject Matter Suit was filed plaintiff against the Defendants seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing the Plaintiff's Trade Mark 'Super Wash' and 'Super Wash – 555' washing soap.
THE ISSUE WHICH WAS TO BE DECIDED:
Essential feature of competing Trademarks of the parties was same , i.e. SUPER WASH. Both of the parties were dealing in soap. Hence the moot question was of the matter was that as to who was the prior user of the subject matter Trade Mark?
THE PLAINTIFF'S ASSERTION:
Plaintiff claimed that the same has been using the subject matter Trademark since the year 01.01.1997.
The Plaintiff also claimed to hold registration of said trademark effective since the year 24.03.1997.
Thus the Plaintiff claimed not only to be prior adopter and user of the subject matter Trademark, but also claimed to be registered proprietor of the same.
The Subject Matter Suit was filed seeking the relief of Inter alia Infringement of Trademark as also the passing off, besides other relief.
THE DEFENCE:
The Defendant claimed to have used the Trademark since the year 03.12.1997. The Defendant alleged that the claim of the Plaintiff to be prior user of the subject matter Trademark was wrong. It was the contention of the Defendant it it was the Defendant who was actually the prior user of the subject matter Trademark.
THE JUDGEMENT:
Appeal was dismissed. Thus the Judgment of the Ld. Trial Court , dismissing the Suit filed by the Plaintiff, was reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Court.
THE REASONS FOR DISMISSAL.
The court observed that although the plaintiff claimed to have used the trademark since 1997, they failed to provide any original documents to support their claim of prior use. Merely submitting photocopies of the documents was deemed insufficient to prove their case, and the plaintiff did not take any steps to provide secondary evidence regarding the photocopies.
Since the documents produced by the plaintiff were photocopies and therefore inadmissible as evidence, their claim of being the prior user of the trademark failed. In contrast, the defendant submitted original invoices from 1998 bearing the subject matter trademark, which proved their prior use.
Considering these factors, the trial court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's suit could not be deemed wrong or perverse. Hence, the appeal was also dismissed.
In order to succeed in the evidence stage, the plaintiff was required to provide original documents, which they failed to do in this case. Consequently, the court concluded that the plaintiff's claim of prior use could not be substantiated.
The defendant, on the other hand, successfully demonstrated their prior use of the trademark through the submission of original invoices from 1998. This further supported the trial court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's suit.
Ultimately, the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit and the affirmation of this decision by the appellate court were based on the lack of sufficient evidence provided by the plaintiff to support their claim of prior use of the trademark. The defendant, through the submission of original invoices, established their own prior use and ultimately prevailed in the case.
CONCLUSION:
The High Court, upon hearing the appeal, carefully examined the Trial Court's decision and the arguments put forth by both parties. The court acknowledged that the Trial Court had correctly observed that photocopies of documents may not possess the same evidentiary value as original documents.
The photocopies of documents can indeed be admissible as evidence if the necessary conditions under the Indian Evidence Act are fulfilled. But in the case at hand, the Plaintiff filed merely photocopies of documents and did not take any step to prove the same in accordance with law, the Trial Court rightly held that Plaintiff failed in proving its case.
DISCLAIMER
Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the facts and law involved herein.
Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP ADJUTOR
Patent and Trademark Attorney
ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com
9990389539
