Refusal To Dismiss FIR For Copyright And Trademark Infringement: Allahabad HC

D.D:21 JUNE 2022

Recently, the Allahabad High Court refused to dismiss a FIR filed for misusing the "Panchi Petha" logo in violation of the Copyright Act, the Trade Mark Act, and the Indian Penal Code.

The Bench of Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Gautam Chowdhary stated, "We have reviewed the documentary evidence." The Panchi logo preceding the word "Petha" on the firm of the petitioner gives the impression that the firm represents "Panchi Petha," which is the firm of respondent no. 4. This fact is readily apparent from the photograph appended to pages 30 and 32 of the paperback book. Therefore, we cannot consider this petition because it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case.

The Court further stated:

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution prohibits the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction against the petitioner.

We strengthened our position in light of the 2013 (2) S.C.C. decision in the case of Arun Bhandari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported by the Supreme Court of India.

In the present case, the accused-petitioner prayed for the quashing of the impugned first information report dated 15.01.2022 registered in Case Crime No.0028 of 2022 under Sections 420, 468, 469, 481, 482, 483, 485, 486, 487, 488 I.P.C., Section 63, 65 of Copy Right Act (Amendment) 1957 and Sections 103, 104 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, Police Station Tajganj

Counsel for the petitioner argued that neither the Copy Right (Amended) Act of 1957 nor the Trade Marks Act of 1999 have been violated, and that the respondent no.4 has filed the FIR out of business rivalry, despite the fact that the petitioner has never used the firm's name, Panchi Petha.

He further argued that the Magistrate granted the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., resulting in the filing of the contested F.I.R.

Counsel further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated because he operates a Petha and Dalmoth business under the name and style of Petha Dalmoth without using the Panchi Petha trademark.

He then argued that prior to running the aforementioned business, the petitioner worked as a Manager at Panchi Petha from 2015 to 2020, whereas the petitioner started his own business after the national lockdown. Lastly, it is argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case due to the fact that he started his own business after working as Manager for Panchi Petha.

In light of the preceding, the court denied the Petition.

Brijesh @ Bhola

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others