Naman Ramsunder Jain vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Naman S/o Ramsunder Jain, is accused No. 1 in FIR No. 0231 of 2022, registered on April 21, 2022, at Nandurbar City Police Station. The FIR was lodged by Respondent No. 2, the authorized representative of Mohan Clothing Company Private Limited, proprietor of the 'Blackberrys' trademark and copyright. The complaint alleged the sale of readymade garments with a fake 'Blackberrys' label in Nandurbar. During a search of the petitioner's shop, 'Viraj Collections', 61 shirts bearing the 'Blackberrys' label were seized. The petitioner stated he purchased these garments from Rohit Multanchand Bothra. Bothra, in a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., confirmed purchasing the garments from Ananya Enterprises and selling them to the petitioner. Ananya Enterprises did not respond to notices. A final report was filed, leading to RCC No. 22 of 2023 against the petitioner, Rohit Bothra, and Amit Modi.

Held

The Court held that the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, are not attracted. The word 'Blackberrys' written in a simple regular font and the image of a flying bird forming part of the logo do not possess artistic quality or craftsmanship to be considered 'artistic works' as defined under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act. Therefore, an offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is not made out. Section 64 of the Copyright Act pertains to the seizure of infringing copies and is not an offence. The Court also found that the petitioner falls within the exceptions provided under Section 104(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner disclosed the genuine source of purchase, which was confirmed during the investigation. Since he had taken reasonable precautions and had no reason to suspect the genuineness of the trademark, and provided information regarding the source, he cannot be prosecuted under Section 104 for selling goods with a false trademark. The Court concluded that the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the legal process as the provisions of the Copyright Act and the Trade Marks Act are not attracted. The FIR and the subsequent criminal case were quashed against the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, are attracted to the facts of the case, specifically concerning the 'Blackberrys' label and logo, and if an offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is made out against the petitioner? 2. Whether the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly Sections 103 and 104, are applicable, and if the petitioner is liable for selling goods with a false trademark? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he is a bonafide businessman who purchased the garments under a regular tax invoice with GST payment from Rohit Bothra. He acted under the bonafide impression that the products were genuine and had no knowledge of them being fake. Respondents' arguments: Respondent No. 2 argued that whether the transaction was bonafide cannot be decided at this stage and requires a trial. The APP for the State supported this view. Respondent No. 2 also argued that the offence should have been registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and not solely under the Copyright Act, although they also contended that the Trade Marks Act might not be attracted. They initially argued that 'Blackberrys' is a copyrighted trademark and the word and image qualify as 'artistic works' under Section 2(b) of the Copyright Act.