Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Counterfeit Trademark Case — High Court's Acquittal Set Aside. The court found that the wrappers and labels sold by the respondents were counterfeit under Section 28 of the Indian Penal Code, as they closely resembled genuine products.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved the prosecution of two respondents for selling counterfeit soaps resembling genuine Sunlight and Lifebuoy brands. The prosecution was initiated after a Trade Marks Investigator discovered the counterfeit products being sold in Lucknow. Following a raid, the respondents were convicted by the Magistrate under Sections 482 and 486 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the High Court acquitted them, stating that the wrappers were merely colourable imitations and not counterfeit. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed this decision. The Supreme Court analyzed the definitions of counterfeiting under Section 28 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing that it is not necessary for the imitation to be exact for it to be considered counterfeit. The court found that both the Magistrate and Sessions Judge had concluded that the resemblance was such that it could deceive a person, a point overlooked by the High Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal under Section 486, and remanded the case back to the High Court for further consideration on jurisdiction and other points.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Counterfeiting - Definition and Application - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 28, 486 - The court held that the wrappers and labels sold by the respondents were counterfeit as they closely resembled the genuine products, and the necessary intention or knowledge to deceive was presumed. The High Court's finding of mere colourable imitation was incorrect as it failed to consider whether the resemblance could deceive a person (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the wrappers and labels used by the respondents were counterfeit under Section 28 of the Indian Penal Code.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the acquittal under Section 486 of the Indian Penal Code, and remanded the cases back to the High Court for further consideration on jurisdiction and other relevant points.

Law Points

  • Counterfeiting
  • Trademark Infringement
  • Deception
  • Indian Penal Code
  • 1860
  • Section 28
  • Section 486
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

Criminal Appeals Nos. 129-130 of 57

1960-02-09

Jafer Imam, K. N. Wanchoo, J. C. Shah

H. N. Sanyal, G. C. Mathur, O. P. Lal, Nuruddin Ahmad, Naunit Lal

State of Uttar Pradesh

Hafiz Mohammad Ismail, Hafiz Jawed Ali

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal prosecution for selling counterfeit goods.

Remedy Sought

State of Uttar Pradesh sought to overturn the High Court's acquittal.

Filing Reason

The High Court acquitted the respondents of charges under the Indian Penal Code.

Previous Decisions

The respondents were convicted by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, but acquitted by the High Court.

Issues

Whether the wrappers and labels were counterfeit under Section 28 of the Indian Penal Code. Whether the High Court erred in its interpretation of counterfeiting.

Submissions/Arguments

The State argued that the High Court misinterpreted the definition of counterfeiting. The respondents contended that the labels were merely colourable imitations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized that counterfeiting does not require exact imitation; resemblance sufficient to deceive suffices for a finding of counterfeiting under Section 28.

Judgment Excerpts

The wrappers and labels were counterfeit of the genuine wrappers and labels of Sunlight and Lifebuoy soaps. It was this aspect of the matter which the High Court failed to consider.

Procedural History

The respondents were convicted by the Magistrate, their appeals were dismissed by the Sessions Judge, and they were acquitted by the High Court. The State sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which was granted.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 28, 486
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Tenants in Rent Control Revision, Sets Aside High Court's Reappreciation of Evidence. High Court's Revision Under Section 26(c) of Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 Cannot Reappreciate Concurrent Find...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds University Admission Policy on Reservations — Clarifies Limits on Reservation Percentages.