LI Network
Published on: 09 August 2023 at 12:00 IST
The Gujarat High Court has emphasized that a police officer must obtain the opinion of the Registrar for infringement of a trade mark before conducting search and seizure operations.
The Court’s ruling came in response to a case where mandatory provisions were not followed during the registration of the First Information Report (FIR), and the complainant failed to prove their authority to file the complaint.
The Court highlighted that the complainant cannot form an opinion about the accused’s trade mark/trade description infringement or falsification without first seeking the Registrar’s opinion on trade mark infringement.
In a matter presented before a Single Judge Bench comprising Justice J.C Doshi, it was found that the FIR in question did not indicate that the opinion of the Registrar had been sought.
Justice Doshi noted that “the police officer who, based on the complaint, conducted the search and seizure on the accused for applying a trade mark and trade description as per the complaint, or falsifying and falsely applying a trade mark, is required to seek the opinion of the Registrar for infringement of the Trade Mark Act before proceeding with search and seizure.”
Advocate Sachin D. Vasavada represented the Applicant, while Advocate Apurva Dave appeared for the Respondent.
The case revolved around the petitioner, who operated a business selling auto parts under the name “Rushab Automobiles” in Ahmedabad City.
The complainant, Sanjay Kumar Verma, claimed to be an officer of IPR Vigilance India Company with contracts to file FIRs for various companies. In 2013, Verma received information that Rushab Automobiles, owned by the petitioner/accused, was selling duplicate parts of Hyundai Motor Company.
Acting on this information, the complainant approached the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), and the petitioner’s shop was subsequently raided by the police.
The seized spare parts were found to be duplicates of Hyundai motor company parts, leading to the registration of an FIR under sections 101, 102, 103, 104, and 105 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999.
Upon examining the case, the Bench scrutinized the FIR and found that the complainant claimed to be an Officer of IPR (Vigilance) and asserted that he had the authority to file a complaint on behalf of IPR (Vigilance) for selling duplicate auto parts.
“Reviewing the FIR and charge sheet documents, there is no indication that the complainant was authorized to file a complaint on behalf of Hyundai Motor Company or IPR (Vigilance).
The investigation does not reveal any contract between IPR (Vigilance) and Hyundai Motor Company that would grant the complainant the authority to search for and report the sale of duplicate auto parts,” the Bench added.
As a result, the Court concluded that the FIR lacked proper authorization and should be dismissed. Consequently, the High Court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings stemming from it.
