IP Adjutor: Episode 19
Is prior opinion of Registrar of Trade Mark under Section 115 of Trademarks Act 1999 mandatory before filing Criminal Complaint?
Case Title:Arun Kumar vs. State of Punjab and Another
Date of Order:25th November 2024
Case Number:CRM-M-54104-2023
Case Citation:2024:PHHC:155158
Court:High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Judge:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Karamjit Singh
Introduction:
This case concerns the quashing of an FIR and related proceedings under the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner, Arun Kumar, challenged the procedural and substantive grounds of the case, alleging non-compliance with statutory requirements.
Background:
FIR Registration: FIR No. 281 was registered on 20.07.2017 under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957, at Police Station Jodhewal, Ludhiana.
Allegations: The petitioner was accused of manufacturing fake garments bearing the "Puma" label and selling them at inflated prices.
Investigation and Charges:
Police seized garments labeled as "Puma" during a raid and arrested the petitioner.Following investigation, a challan was submitted under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957.Additional charges under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, were later framed by the trial court.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The complainant, authorized by RNA-IP Attorneys, alleged unauthorized manufacturing of garments with the "Puma" label.A raid led by Inspector Vijay Kumar resulted in the seizure of fake garments.The petitioner contended that procedural violations under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, invalidated the proceedings.
Issues Involved in the Case:
Procedural Compliance:
Whether the investigation complied with Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, requiring involvement of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP).
Whether the Registrar of Trade Marks’ opinion was obtained before search and seizure, as mandated by the Act.
Substantive Grounds:Whether the charges under the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Trade Marks Act, 1999, were legally sustainable.
Submissions of the Parties:
Petitioner:
Violation of Section 115(4):Search and seizure were conducted by an Inspector, not a DSP, violating statutory requirements.No opinion from the Registrar of Trade Marks was sought before initiating proceedings.
Date of Order:25th November 2024
Case Number:CRM-M-54104-2023
Case Citation:2024:PHHC:155158
Court:High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Judge:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Karamjit Singh
Introduction:
This case concerns the quashing of an FIR and related proceedings under the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner, Arun Kumar, challenged the procedural and substantive grounds of the case, alleging non-compliance with statutory requirements.
Background:
FIR Registration: FIR No. 281 was registered on 20.07.2017 under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957, at Police Station Jodhewal, Ludhiana.
Allegations: The petitioner was accused of manufacturing fake garments bearing the "Puma" label and selling them at inflated prices.
Investigation and Charges:
Police seized garments labeled as "Puma" during a raid and arrested the petitioner.Following investigation, a challan was submitted under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957.Additional charges under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, were later framed by the trial court.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The complainant, authorized by RNA-IP Attorneys, alleged unauthorized manufacturing of garments with the "Puma" label.A raid led by Inspector Vijay Kumar resulted in the seizure of fake garments.The petitioner contended that procedural violations under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, invalidated the proceedings.
Issues Involved in the Case:
Procedural Compliance:
Whether the investigation complied with Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, requiring involvement of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP).
Whether the Registrar of Trade Marks’ opinion was obtained before search and seizure, as mandated by the Act.
Substantive Grounds:Whether the charges under the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Trade Marks Act, 1999, were legally sustainable.
Submissions of the Parties:
Petitioner:
Violation of Section 115(4):Search and seizure were conducted by an Inspector, not a DSP, violating statutory requirements.No opinion from the Registrar of Trade Marks was sought before initiating proceedings.
Applicability of the Copyright Act:
Manufacture and sale of garments do not fall under the purview of the Copyright Act, 1957.Cited Deepak vs. State of Haryana (2023), which held similar allegations unsustainable under the Copyright Act.
Quashing of Proceedings:
Sought quashing of FIR, challan, and additional charges for procedural and substantive deficiencies.
State:
Supported the FIR and subsequent proceedings.Justified the seizure of fake garments with "Puma" labels and the petitioner’s arrest.Admitted procedural lapses, including the absence of a DSP and Registrar’s opinion.
Reasoning and Analysis by the Court:
Non-Compliance with Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act:
Investigation and seizure were conducted by an Inspector, violating Section 115(4), which mandates a DSP or higher rank.The Registrar’s opinion was not obtained before search and seizure, contravening the Act’s proviso.
Applicability of the Copyright Act:Section 13 of the Copyright Act does not cover the manufacture and sale of garments.Prosecution failed to establish infringement of copyright under Sections 63 and 65 of the Act.Relied on the Deepak vs. State of Haryana (2023) precedent, which held similar actions outside the scope of the Copyright Act.
Procedural Deficiencies:
Procedural lapses rendered the prosecution legally unsustainable under both the Copyright Act and the Trade Marks Act.
Decision:
The Court allowed the petition and quashed:
FIR No. 281 dated 20.07.2017.
Final report dated 18.02.2018.
Order dated 02.09.2023 framing additional charges under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
All consequential proceedings arising from the above were also quashed.
Conclusion:
The case highlights the critical importance of procedural compliance in intellectual property infringement cases. The Court emphasized adherence to statutory mandates under the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly concerning investigation and prosecution. Procedural lapses and substantive inadequacies led to the quashing of the FIR and related proceedings.
Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]
High Court of Delhi
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com
Phone: 9990389539
Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
