* IN
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 27thOctober, 2009
Judgment Delivered on: 11th November, 2009 + CRL.R.P.225/2002 &CRL.M.A.
Nos.424/2002,479/2002 M/S CALCUTTA WIRE NETTING INDUSTRIES
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman,
Advocate.
Through: Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman,
Advocate.
Versus
RAMESHWAR DAYAL GUPTA & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Manoj Ohri, APP for the
State.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET
KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the
judgment?
judgment?
1
To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
2
Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1
On 27.1.1998 M/s Calcutta Wire Netting
Industries through its soleproprietor Madan Lal Arora had filed a complaint
under Crl. R.P.225/2002 Page1 of 7 Sections 78 & 79 of the Trade &
Merchandise Act 1958 as also underSection 63 & 64 of the Indian Copy Right
Act 1957 and under Section 420 of theIPC. This complaint was filed against
certain unknown persons. The allegationsin the complaint were that the
complainant firm had adopted the trade mark"TIGER BRAND" label with
device of TIGER in respect of wires and wire nettingin the year 1964 and had
been continuously using the same since up to the dateof the filing of the
complaint. Business carried on by the complainant firm wasextensive and goods
bearing its trade mark were in high demand in the marketon account of its
quality and precision. Complainant firm vide applicationNo.537068 had applied for
registration of this trade mark "TIGER BRAND" on1.9.1997. Complainant
firm is the owner of the artistic work in theaforementioned trade mark titled
"TIGER BRAND" label with the device of TIGERas the same being
original in character.
2
On 29.3.1998 a search and seizure order was
passed by the concerned Courtbefore whom the complaint had been filed. Pursuant
to the search warrantsarticles bearing falsified mark "TIGER" were
recovered from the possession ofthe accused Rameshwar Dayal Gupta from premises
of M/s Gupta Industrial Crl.R.P.225/2002 Page 2 of 7 Corporation No.2, Gali
no.9, Anand Prabhat, New Delhi.Recoveries were also effected from the
possession of Satish Gupta on 30.3.1998from premises no.1101,1102, Rucka
Hajrasmal Mohalla Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi.Further recoveries were also made from
the possession of accused Bharat BhushanGupta from premises no. K−429/135, G.T.
Karnal Road, Adarsh Nagar Extension.This recovery was effected on 3.9.1998.
3
On 3.12.1997 a notice of opposition had been
filed by Rameshwar Dayalagainst the aforestated application of the complainant
seeking registration of
Indian
Kanoon − http://indiankanoon.org/doc/924796/
his trade mark. As per the
complainant the communication of this notice ofopposition had been made to the
petitioner on 11.6.1999 only and this isevident from the endorsement on page
no.137 of the documents filed along withthis petition. It is submitted that
this notice of opposition having been filedby Rameshwar Dayal was not within
the knowledge of the petitioner till11.6.1999 and that is why it did not find
mention in the complaint filed by himon 27.1.1998.
1
It is further submitted that the registration
of a trade mark is not acondition precedent for initiation of an action under
Section 78 & 79 of theTrade Mark & Merchandise Act 1958; for this
proposition reliance has beenplaced upon State of U.P. vs. Crl. R.P.225/2002
Page 3 of 7 Ram Nath AIR 1972SC 232 as also the proposition as laid down in the
judgment, Century Tradersvs. Roshan Lal Duggar Co. AIR 1978 Delhi 250.
2
Order impugned before this court is the order
dated 27.3.2002 vide which therespondents i.e. Rameshwar Dayal, Satish Gupta
and Bharat Bhushan Gupta hadbeen discharged. Finding of the court below was
primarily on two counts:− i.Complainant was not a registered owner of the trade
mark. ii. Concealment ofmaterial facts.
6. Perusal of the
record and submissions made by the petitioner substantiatehis stand; in State
of U.P. supra, it has been inter alia held :−
" The definition of trade mark in
S.2(1)(v) that for the purpose of
Chapter X of the Act which deals with the criminal offences, a trade mark
includes a registered as well as unregistered trade mark. An offence under Ss.
78 or 79 therefore relates to a trade whether it is registered or unregistered."
Chapter X of the Act which deals with the criminal offences, a trade mark
includes a registered as well as unregistered trade mark. An offence under Ss.
78 or 79 therefore relates to a trade whether it is registered or unregistered."
3
It is thus clear that the registration of a
trade mark is not a conditionprecedent for the initiation of a complaint under
Sections 79 & 79 of the TradeMark & Merchandise Act
4
Second finding of the Trial Judge is also an
erroneous finding as thedocuments filed on record prima facie show that the
notice of oppositionpurportedly filed by Rameshwar Dayal Crl. R.P.225/2002 Page
4 of 7 on3.12.1997 had been communicated to the petitioner only on 11.6.1999;
that iswhy it did not find mention in the complaint which was filed on
27.1.1998. Thisis no suppression of material facts.
5
The petitioner along with his complaint has
filed various documents insupport of his submission that he has been using this
trade mark since February1967. These includes an application for interim
injunction filed in SuitNo.234/96 by the petitioner against M/s Soni Udhyog.
The High Court whilegranting the ad interim injunction in favour of the
plaintiff had held that theplaintiff has placed on record prima facie
sufficient material sufficient toshow that it had been marketing its product
under the trade mark "TIGER BRAND"from the year 1967; the sale
figures disclosed also show that it had acquired areputation/goodwill with the
use of the trade mark "TIGER BRAND" brand inrespect of wire netting.
10 Section 78 of the Trade Mark
and Merchandise Act relates to the making offalse marks and Section 79 relates
to the sale, exposure or possession of theoffending marks. Both the offences
are statutory offences; mens rea anddishonest intention is not a necessary
ingredient. In Mohamod Khalil Vs. Crl.R.P.225/2002 Page 5 of 7 State of
Maharashtra & Anr. 1982 PTC 411 while dealingwith the provisions of Section
78 & 79 of the aforestated Statute it had beenheld that for an offence
under the statutory Act the principle of mens reacannot be applied with the
same rigor; statutory offences have to be determinedin the circumstances and
the conditions prescribed by the statute.
11. In the instant case, it has
prima facie been established that the
Indian
Kanoon − http://indiankanoon.org/doc/924796/
petitioner had a prior user,
goodwill, reputation and proprietary right in the
said trade mark i.e. "TIGER BRAND".
said trade mark i.e. "TIGER BRAND".
1
At the stage of framing of charge the details
of all the material which theprosecution will produce or rely on during the
stage of trial are not expectedto be produced or referred to before the learned
judge at the time of openingof the case for the prosecution. Under Section 227
and 228 of the CriminalProcedure Code the court has to satisfy itself that the
accusation made againstthe accused person is not frivolous and there is some
material for proceedingsagainst him; the stage prior to the framing of a charge
is not expected to be adress rehearsal of a trial.
2
The impugned order clearly calls for
interference. Prima facie, theingredients of the offences as mentioned in the
Crl. R.P.225/2002 Page 6 of 7complaint are made out against the accused
persons. Impugned order beingillegal and based on erroneous finding; it is
liable to be set aside; revisionpetition is allowed.
3
Parties to appear before Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate on 26.11.2009 who
will proceed with the
complaint in accordance
|
with law.
|
15. Record of the Trial court
be returned.
|
(INDERMEET KAUR)
|
JUDGE
|
|
11th November, 2009
|
|
nandan
|
|
Crl. R.P.225/2002 Page 7 of 7
|
Indian Kanoon −
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/924796/
