In Sun Textile Engineers & Ors (Petitioner/
Accused) v State of Gujarat & Anr (Respondent /
Complainant), the Petitioners being the original accused,
sought for quashing of the complaint pending before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Surat on the ground that the
complaint did not disclose any offences mentioned in the
In the impugned complaint, the offences mentioned against the
Petitioners were those punishable under Section 101 to 104 of the
Trade Marks Act, under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and under
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Respondent /
Complainant, contended, inter alia, that
they, a manufacturer of bulk transporters with air slide discharge
system, were selling such products throughout India under the trade
name "ACC- "ShimMaywa". Further, that the customers
and purchasers of such machines associated the product; with the
trade mark "ACC ShinMaywa Bulk Transporter" of which the
Complainant company held the ownership and proprietorship.
It was alleged, that the Petitioners/Accused in order to deceive
and defraud the customers of the Complainant company had copied the
impugned trade mark and trade description deceptively. They had
also copied the essential features printed in the catalogue of the
company's product. Based on the above grounds the
Petitioners/Accused were accused to have committed offences, which
On the other hand, the Petitioners/Accused argued that the
complaint was lodged in the year 2002 for the alleged offence
punishable under the Trade Mark Act, 1999 (hereinafter, the Act),
which was actually brought into effect from 15th
September 2003. It was further submitted that there was no
infringement of the Copyright Act since copyright could be claimed
only for limited things. Further, the product of the
Petitioners/Accused was called "Sun Bulk Transporter" and
as such the trade mark "ACC ShinMaywa" was in no way
copied. Another argument put forward was that the purchasers and
customers were educated persons engaged in construction or related
business. Therefore, no case for cheating was made out.
The learned Judge on observation of the arguments presented for
the Plaintiff and the State observed:
That it was clear that the impugned complaint was filed in the
year 2002, here offences alleged were under the Act of 1999, which
had been brought into force with effect from 15th
September 2003. Therefore retrospective operation of criminal
provision could not be there. Thus, there was no case for
proceeding further under Section 101 and 104 of the Act of
With regard to allegations of offences under section 63 of the
Copyright Act, it was observed that, it was clear from Section 13
of the said Act that copyright could be claimed only for the works
of (a) original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works; (b)
cinematograph films and (c) sound recording. The present case did
not fall in any of the categories.
With regard to Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, it was
observed there were no clear averments made in the complaint as to
how the customers were cheated. Further in comparison of the
brochure of the complainant with that of the petitioners, it was
observed that, there was no similarity between the two with which
the educated customers could be misled. Thus there was no case for
The Court therefore quashed the impugned complaint and the rule
was made absolute accordingly.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recently issued an office memorandum pursuant to receiving representations from various stakeholders for guidance with respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.
An Invention Disclosure Form is the documentation of the invention. This is a means to document particulars of your invention and submitting it to the patent attorney who is filing your patent application.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).