Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings under Copyright Act for Trade Mark Infringement and Non-Compliance with Mandatory Search Requirements
Sri. Vishal Vrushabhanaath Samaje Vs. The State of Karnataka and Another:20.07.2026:Criminal Petition No. 9513 of 2026:Neutral Citation : 2026:KHC:37262: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru:Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the charge sheet and entire proceedings in C.C. No. 22293/2025 arising out of Crime No. 88/2025 registered at Upparpet Police Station, Bengaluru City. The case was registered for offences punishable under Sections 51(1)(b), 63, and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957, pending before the IX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was in possession of and engaged in selling counterfeit branded apparel, which caused financial loss to the original brand owners.
Dispute before Court
The main dispute was whether the act of selling counterfeit branded goods constitutes an offence under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, or under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Further, the court had to determine whether criminal proceedings initiated without complying with the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 which mandates search and seizure by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and prior opinion from the Registrar could be sustained.
Reasoning of Judge
The court relied on coordinate bench precedents and observed that merely selling counterfeit goods bearing registered brand labels does not constitute an infringement of copyright under Section 13 or Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957, as the accused was not claiming copyright or manufacturing original works. Instead, such acts fall strictly under Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court noted that Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act requires search and seizure to be conducted by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police after obtaining the Registrar's opinion. Since the search was conducted by an officer below the prescribed rank without fulfilling these statutory mandates, the investigation and charge sheet were fatally vitiated.
Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the charge sheet and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 22293/2025 pending on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, insofar as the petitioner was concerned.
One Important legal principle held in the case
Possession or sale of counterfeit branded goods constitutes an offence under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, rather than the Copyright Act, 1957, and failure to adhere to the mandatory search and seizure procedure under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act vitiates the entire prosecution.
[Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation ]
Section 115 Trade Marks Act Compliance Mandatory for Search and Seizure
Introduction:
The Karnataka High Court recently addressed a vital procedural and jurisdictional issue regarding intellectual property offences in criminal law. The case centered on whether police authorities can bypass statutory procedures prescribed under specialized statutes by invoking provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, for cases involving counterfeit trade mark goods. The ruling re-emphasizes the strict statutory safeguards provided under intellectual property statutes to prevent procedural lapses during law enforcement operations.
Factual and Procedural Background:
The proceedings originated from Crime No. 88/2025 registered at Upparpet Police Station, Bengaluru City. Following investigation, a charge sheet was submitted in C.C. No. 22293/2025 before the IX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru. The charges were framed under Sections 51(1)(b), 63, and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The core allegation against the accused was that he was involved in storing and selling counterfeit apparel bearing famous brand labels.
The petitioner challenged the proceedings by filing a petition under Section 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), praying for the quashing of the charge sheet and pending criminal proceedings. The petitioner argued that the underlying facts of the case, even if taken as true, did not attract the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Dispute Before the Court:
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether selling goods bearing false brand labels attracts criminal liability under the Copyright Act, 1957, or under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. A connected issue was whether search and seizure operations conducted by police officers below the rank prescribed under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, render the prosecution legally unsustainable.
The petitioner contended that the allegations related strictly to trade mark infringement and false trade descriptions. Consequently, the police ought to have followed the procedure established under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which mandates that search and seizure operations must be carried out by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and only after obtaining the statutory opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The state argued that the charge sheet had been validly filed based on the initial registration under copyright provisions.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court:
The Court analyzed the scope of copyright protection under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which covers original literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, cinematograph films, and sound recordings. The Court observed that for an offence under copyright law to be attracted, there must be an allegation of infringing an original work in which copyright subsists. Where the allegation is simply that a trader is selling counterfeit clothing items carrying brand logos, no claim to original creation or copyright violation is established against the accused.
The Court emphasized that such acts fall squarely under Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which provides penalties for selling or possessing goods bearing false trade marks or descriptions. Since the subject matter related to trade mark violations, the mandatory provisions of Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, became applicable.
Section 115(4) explicitly dictates two indispensable requirements for searching and seizing counterfeit goods: the operation must be conducted by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (or equivalent), and the officer must obtain an opinion from the Registrar of Trade Marks before executing the search.
Relying on established judicial precedents, including earlier rulings in Criminal Petition No. 2080 of 2023 (decided on June 19, 2024) and Criminal Petition No. 6096 of 2016 (decided on February 28, 2019), the Court pointed out that investigating agencies cannot circumvent statutory protections by registering cases under the Copyright Act to avoid the requirements of the Trade Marks Act. Because the search in the present case was conducted by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police without obtaining the mandatory Registrar's opinion, the search, seizure, and subsequent charge sheet were fundamentally flawed and unsustainable in law.
Final Decision of the Court:
The Court allowed the criminal petition. It quashed the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 22293/2025, including the underlying charge sheet arising from Crime No. 88/2025, pending on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, insofar as the petitioner was concerned.
Point of Law Settled:
This judgment reaffirms that allegations of selling counterfeit branded items constitute trade mark offences under Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and cannot be routinely converted into copyright prosecutions. It re-establishes that compliance with Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 specifically search by an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or above and prior opinion from the Registrar is mandatory. Any search, seizure, or prosecution conducted in violation of these mandatory safeguards is illegal and liable to be quashed.
Title of the Case: Sri. Vishal Vrushabhanaath Samaje vs. The State of Karnataka and Another
Date of Judgment: 20.07.2026
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 9513 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:37262
Name of Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Written By:Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation .
Headnote of the Judgment:
Sri. Vishal Vrushabhanaath Samaje vs. The State of Karnataka and Another, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, Criminal Petition No. 9513 of 2026 (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:37262). The petitioner challenged a charge sheet under Sections 51(1)(b), 63, and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957, regarding alleged sale of counterfeit branded goods. The High Court held that selling counterfeit branded goods attracts Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, rather than copyright provisions. Because search and seizure were conducted by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police without obtaining the Registrar's opinion as mandated by Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, the investigation was illegal. The petition was allowed and criminal proceedings were quashed.
Suggested SEO Tags:
Karnataka High Court, Trade Marks Act 1999, Copyright Act 1957, Section 115 Trade Marks Act, Counterfeit Goods, Quashing of Charge Sheet, Section 63 Copyright Act, Section 104 Trade Marks Act, Search and Seizure Law, Illegal Search, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Registrar of Trade Marks, Criminal Procedure Code, BNSS Section 528, Intellectual Property Rights, IP Litigation India, Counterfeit Apparel Case, Quashing FIR Bengaluru, IX ACJM Bangalore, Legal News India, Trademark Infringement Prosecution, Police Search Procedure, Mandatory Compliance IP Law, Quash Criminal Proceedings, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Suggested SEO Titles:
1. Karnataka High Court Quashes Counterfeit Case for Non-Compliance with Trade Marks Act
2. Copyright vs Trade Mark Offence: Karnataka High Court Clarifies Legal Position
3. Section 115 Trade Marks Act Compliance Mandatory for Search and Seizure: High Court
4. Why Selling Counterfeit Goods Is Not Automatically Copyright Infringement: HC Explains
5. Karnataka HC Quashes Charge Sheet Over Procedural Lapses in Counterfeit Goods Case
6. High Court Ruling on Police Rank Requirements for Searching Counterfeit Goods
7. Trade Mark Offence Search Procedures: Critical High Court Judgment
8. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings under Copyright Act for Counterfeit Apparel
9. Karnataka HC Reaffirms Mandate of Registrar Opinion Under Trade Marks Act 1999
10. Intellectual Property Criminal Prosecution Safeguards: Karnataka HC Ruling
