Introduction
The Karnataka High Court recently addressed a vital procedural and jurisdictional issue regarding intellectual property offenses in criminal law. The case centered on whether police authorities can bypass statutory procedures prescribed under specialized statutes by invoking provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, for cases involving counterfeit trade mark goods. The ruling re-emphasizes the strict statutory safeguards provided under intellectual property statutes to prevent procedural lapses during law enforcement operations.
Factual and Procedural Background
The proceedings originated from Crime No. 88/2025 registered at Upparpet Police Station, Bengaluru City. Following an investigation, a charge sheet was submitted in C.C. No. 22293/2025 before the IX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.
The charges were framed under Sections 51(1)(b), 63, and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The core allegation against the accused was that he was involved in storing and selling counterfeit apparel bearing famous brand labels.
The petitioner challenged the proceedings by filing a petition under Section 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), praying for the quashing of the charge sheet and pending criminal proceedings. The petitioner argued that the underlying facts of the case, even if taken as true, did not attract the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Case Overview
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Crime Number | Crime No. 88/2025 |
| Trial Case | C.C. No. 22293/2025 |
| Police Station | Upparpet Police Station, Bengaluru City |
| Court | IX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru |
| Statutory Provisions Invoked | Sections 51(1)(b), 63, and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 |
| Nature of Allegation | Storage and sale of counterfeit apparel bearing famous brand labels |
Dispute Before the Court
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether selling goods bearing false brand labels attracts criminal liability under the Copyright Act, 1957, or under the Trademarks Act, 1999. A connected issue was whether search and seizure operations conducted by police officers below the rank prescribed under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, render the prosecution legally unsustainable.
The petitioner contended that the allegations related strictly to trade mark infringement and false trade descriptions. Consequently, the police ought to have followed the procedure established under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which mandates that search and seizure operations must be carried out by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and only after obtaining the statutory opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
The state argued that the charge sheet had been validly filed based on the initial registration under copyright provisions.
Key Legal Issues
- Whether counterfeit branded goods amount to copyright infringement or trade mark infringement.
- Whether prosecution under the Copyright Act, 1957, was legally maintainable.
- Whether compliance with Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, is mandatory.
- Whether non-compliance with statutory search and seizure requirements invalidates the prosecution.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The Court analyzed the scope of copyright protection under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which covers original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works; cinematographic films; and sound recordings.
The Court observed that for an offense under copyright law to be attracted, there must be an allegation of infringing an original work in which copyright subsists. Where the allegation is simply that a trader is selling counterfeit clothing items carrying brand logos, no claim to original creation or copyright violation is established against the accused.
The Court emphasized that such acts fall squarely under Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which provides penalties for selling or possessing goods bearing false trade marks or descriptions. Since the subject matter related to trade mark violations, the mandatory provisions of Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, became applicable.
Section 115(4) explicitly dictates two indispensable requirements for searching and seizing counterfeit goods: the operation must be conducted by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (or equivalent), and the officer must obtain an opinion from the Registrar of Trade Marks before executing the search.
Relying on established judicial precedents, including earlier rulings in Criminal Petition No. 2080 of 2023 (decided on June 19, 2024) and Criminal Petition No. 6096 of 2016 (decided on February 28, 2019), the Court pointed out that investigating agencies cannot circumvent statutory protections by registering cases under the Copyright Act to avoid the requirements of the Trade Marks Act.
Because the search in the present case was conducted by an officer below the rank of deputy superintendent of police without obtaining the mandatory registrar’s opinion, the search, seizure, and subsequent charge sheet were fundamentally flawed and unsustainable in law.
Court Findings at a Glance
| Issue | Finding |
|---|---|
| Nature of offence | Trademark offense, not copyright infringement |
| Applicable law | Trade Marks Act, 1999 |
| Mandatory procedure | Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 |
| Required rank of investigating officer | Deputy Superintendent of Police or above |
| Registrar’s opinion | Mandatory before search |
| Result of non-compliance | Search, seizure and prosecution become legally unsustainable |
Final Decision of the Court
The Court allowed the criminal petition. It quashed the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 22293/2025, including the underlying charge sheet arising from Crime No. 88/2025, pending on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, insofar as the petitioner was concerned.
Point of Law Settled
This judgment reaffirms that allegations of selling counterfeit branded items constitute trademark offenses under Section 104 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, and cannot be routinely converted into copyright prosecutions.
It re-establishes that compliance with Section 115(4) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, specifically a search by an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or above and a prior opinion from the Registrar, is mandatory. Any search, seizure, or prosecution conducted in violation of these mandatory safeguards is illegal and liable to be quashed.
Legal Principles Reaffirmed
- Counterfeit branded goods primarily attract the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
- The Copyright Act, 1957, cannot be used to bypass mandatory safeguards under the Trade Marks Act.
- Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, is mandatory.
- Only a police officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or above can conduct the search.
- A prior opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks is compulsory before conducting the search.
- Non-compliance renders the search, seizure, and prosecution liable to be quashed.
Case Details
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Title of the Case | Sri Vishal Vrushabhanaath Samaje vs. The State of Karnataka and Another |
| Date of Judgment | 20.07.2026 |
| Case Number | Criminal Petition No. 9513 of 2026 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:KHC:37262 |
| Name of Court | High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru |
| Honorable Judge | Honorable Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna |
Key Takeaways
- The Court distinguished copyright infringement from trademark infringement.
- Counterfeit brand label cases ordinarily fall under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
- Police authorities cannot avoid mandatory statutory safeguards by registering cases under the Copyright Act, 1957.
- Failure to comply with Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, makes the prosecution legally unsustainable.
- The judgment strengthens procedural safeguards in criminal investigations involving intellectual property offenses.
Written By
Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor (Patent and Trademark Attorney)
High Court of Delhi
Important Links
Important Links:
- Lawyers in India
- Copyright Registration in India
- Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
- Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi/ NCR: WhatsApp 9650499965
