The Bombay High Court has ruled that mere printing of “JSW Steel Ltd.” on alleged counterfeit tin sheets cannot attract the Copyright Act in the absence of any allegation regarding infringement of a copyrighted artistic logo. The Court clarified that merely using a company’s name on products is different from using its logo, and the FIR contained no allegation that any copyrighted logo or artistic work of JSW Steel Ltd. had been copied or infringed.
The complaint did not assert that the name “JSW Steel Ltd.” constituted an artistic work protected under the Copyright Act, nor that any copyright in such work had been infringed. According to the Court, sale or storage of alleged counterfeit goods bearing a company’s name could, at best, attract Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, relating to false trade marks.
The search and seizure were conducted by a Police Sub-Inspector, although Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act requires action by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Since the allegations, even if accepted at face value, did not constitute offences under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act, the case fell within the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal for quashing criminal proceedings.
Briefly, the case arose from an FIR registered against Shadab Sheikh Qayyum Sheikh after a raid at his business premises, M/s New Kausal Traders, in Saoner, Nagpur. Acting on information received by an investigator engaged by JSW Steel Ltd., police allegedly seized 137 tin sheets bearing the name “JSW Steel Ltd. 0.50 MM”, valued at about Rs. 1.57 lakhs. The complainant alleged that the applicant was selling counterfeit products of the company, leading to registration of offences under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The applicant approached the Bombay High Court, contending that the allegations, even if accepted in full, related to sale of counterfeit goods and not infringement of copyright. It was argued that the FIR did not contain any allegation regarding infringement of any copyrighted artistic work and that, at the highest, the allegations could attract provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice M. W. Chandwani observed that copyright under Section 13 of the Copyright Act subsists only in specified categories of works, including original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works. While a logo may qualify as an artistic work capable of copyright protection, the FIR in the present case did not allege that any logo of the company was used by the applicant.
The Court noted that the FIR merely alleged use of the company’s name on tin sheets. It emphasized that there is a clear distinction between a company’s name and its logo. The FIR did not state that the name “JSW Steel Ltd.” was an artistic work, that any copyright subsisted in it, or that any such copyright had been infringed.
According to the Court, the allegations disclosed a case of sale or possession of counterfeit goods bearing a false trade mark rather than copyright infringement. Therefore, the facts, even if accepted as true, could at best attract Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and not Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act.
The Court further found that, under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, search and seizure in such matters must be conducted by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police after following the statutory procedure. However, in the present case, the search and seizure had been conducted by a Police Sub-Inspector, contrary to the mandatory requirement of law. This rendered the investigation and consequent proceedings legally defective.
The Court clarified that although an FIR is not expected to contain every minute detail, it must nevertheless disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. Since the allegations failed to make out an offence under the Copyright Act, continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.
