Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Foundation Facts Not Established: Delhi High Court Quashes Summons Colgate Palmolive and Others in Alleged Forgery of Trade Mark Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court has quashed the summons issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate against Colgate Palmolive Company and its directors in a case involving allegations of forgery and fabrication of trade mark certificates. Justice Amit Sharma ruled that the foundational facts necessary to establish forgery were not verified, and the complaint was deemed impermissible under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The case arose from complaints by Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Against Colgate Palmolive Company and its associates, alleging forgery and fabrication of trade mark certificates related to the red and white color combination used by Colgate. The complaints cited violations under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Verification of Documents: Justice Amit Sharma emphasized the necessity of verifying the authenticity of the documents from the Trade Marks Registry. The court noted, “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was incumbent upon the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to conduct an inquiry from the office of the Trade Marks Registry to ascertain whether the alleged forgery is reflected from the records of the said department.”

Forgery Allegations: The court observed that the allegations of forgery and fabrication were not substantiated by concrete evidence. It noted that both the original and duplicate trade mark certificates were issued by authorized officials of the Trade Marks Registry. “The case of Anchor that the certified copy of the certificate of registration dated 28.02.2006 issued, contrary to the advertisement published in the Trade Mark Journal, by the Deputy Registrar in collusion with Colgate would amount to forgery, is also not made out,” the court stated.

Application of Section 195 CrPC: The judgment extensively discussed the bar under Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC, which prevents the court from taking cognizance of certain offenses unless a complaint is made by the court itself. Justice Sharma highlighted, “In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion, as alleged by Anchor, in the same course of transaction, two separate offenses have been committed and for one set of offenses, complaint of Court is mandatory and therefore it is not possible to split them up.”

“The foundational fact for initiation of prosecution for offense punishable under Section 193 of the IPC in the facts of the present case, as averred by Anchor, would be establishing the fact that the documents are forged,” Justice Sharma remarked. He further noted, “Forgery of a document cannot be simply inferred, but has to be established in accordance with law.”

The Delhi High Court’s dismissal of the complaint underscores the importance of concrete evidence in cases of alleged forgery and the procedural safeguards under Section 195 of the CrPC. The judgment sends a clear message regarding the necessity of substantiating claims with verifiable evidence and adhering to legal procedures. This decision is expected to have significant implications for future cases involving similar allegations of forgery and fabrication.

Date of Decision: May 28, 2024

Colgate Palmolive Company & Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Similar News