Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Prateek Chandragupt Goyal, a journalist working with the online news portal 'Newslaundry', filed a writ petition seeking quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) registered against him at Vishrambaug Police Station, Pune, on 16 September 2020. The FIR was lodged by respondent No.2, Mahendra Narsinghrao Pisal, the Chief Administrative Officer of Sakal Group, which publishes the Marathi newspaper 'Sakal' and the English newspaper 'Sakal Times'. The FIR alleged that the petitioner committed an offence under Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, by falsely applying the registered trade mark of Sakal Group in two articles authored by him and published on Newslaundry on 27 March 2020 and 11 June 2020. The articles were critical of the Sakal Group, with headings such as 'The future is bleak: Sakal Times staffers say they have been sacked in violation of Maharashtra order' and 'They wanted to get rid of us: over 50 people laid off as Sakal Times closes down'. The respondent claimed that the use of the official logos/trade marks of Sakal Media Group and Sakal Times on these articles was defamatory and constituted false application of the trade mark. The petitioner contended that the ingredients of Section 103 were not made out, as the use of the trade mark was for news reporting and not for any trade purpose. The court examined the definition of 'false application' under Section 103, which requires that a person applies a trade mark to goods or services with the intention of passing them off as those of another. The court held that the articles were clearly about the Sakal Group and its actions, and the use of the trade mark was merely to identify the subject of the news. There was no intention to deceive the public or to pass off the articles as being produced by the Sakal Group. The court further noted that the petitioner was a former employee of Sakal Times and had a legitimate interest in reporting on the layoffs. The court concluded that no offence under Section 103 was made out, and the FIR was liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of process. The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Trade Mark Offence - Section 103 Trade Marks Act, 1999 - False Application of Trade Mark - The court examined whether a journalist's use of a registered trade mark in two news articles critical of the trade mark owner amounted to 'false application' under Section 103. Held that the essential ingredient of 'falsely applying' a trade mark requires an intention to pass off goods or services as those of another, which was absent as the articles were clearly about the Sakal Group and not claiming any affiliation. The use was for news reporting, not trade purposes. (Paras 2-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC - The court considered the petition for quashing of FIR on the ground that no offence was made out. Held that where the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not constitute the alleged offence, the FIR is liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of process of law. (Paras 2, 10) C) Media Law - Journalistic Privilege - Fair Use of Trade Mark - The court recognized that journalists may use trade marks in news reporting for identification and criticism, which is a form of fair use. Held that such use does not attract criminal liability under Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as it is not in the course of trade and does not deceive the public. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the use of a registered trade mark in a news article, without authorization, constitutes an offence under Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and whether the FIR deserves to be quashed.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR dated 16/09/2020 registered against the petitioner under Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Law Points
- Fair use of trade mark for news reporting
- Section 103 Trade Marks Act 1999
- False application of trade mark
- Ingredients of offence under Section 103
- Journalistic privilege
- Quashing of FIR
