The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.21775 of 2022, registered for offenses under the Trade Marks Act and the Copyright Act. The core issue revolves around the necessity of obtaining prior permission under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, before lodging a complaint under Sections 103, 104, or 105 of the same Act.

Case Background:
The petitioner argues that the complaint was registered without the necessary prior permission from a police officer of a rank not below the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), as required by Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner references a similar case, Crl.P.No.6096 of 2016, decided by a co-ordinate bench on 28-02-2019, which supports this argument.

Legal Provisions:
Sections 103, 104, and 105 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999:
These sections address offenses related to trademark infringement, falsifying and falsely applying trademarks, and related fraudulent activities.

Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999:
This section mandates that a police officer not below the rank of DSP must be convinced that an offense under Sections 103, 104, or 105 has been committed or is likely to be committed. Only then may such an officer search and seize goods without a warrant, provided they first obtain the opinion of the Registrar on the facts involved in the offense relating to the trademark and adhere to that opinion.

Legal Issue:
The primary legal issue is whether the prior permission of the Registrar of Trademarks under Section 115(4) is mandatory before lodging a complaint under Sections 103, 104, or 105 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Petitioner’s Argument:
The petitioner asserts that the complaint and subsequent proceedings are unlawful as they were initiated without the required prior permission under Section 115(4). They cite the precedent set by the co-ordinate bench in Crl.P.No.6096 of 2016, where a similar issue was adjudicated.

Relevant Precedent:
The petitioner relies on the findings of the co-ordinate bench in Crl.P.No.6096 of 2016, which held:

"A police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, if he is satisfied that an offense under sections 103, 104, or 105 has been committed or is likely to be committed, may search and seize goods, dye, block, machine, plate etc., without warrant. In this case, the search and seizure was conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Police contrary to the mandate. Thus, the mandatory provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, have not been complied with. Therefore, registration of the FIR and consequent investigation are vitiated."

In this precedent, the court quashed the complaint due to non-compliance with Section 115(4), emphasizing the necessity of adhering to procedural mandates.

Court’s Observation:
The court, in quashing the proceedings in the current case, observed:

"In view of the aforementioned finding by the co-ordinate bench, the subject matter complaint is quashed. It is clear that without obtaining prior permission as required under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the registration of the FIR and the subsequent investigation are vitiated. Therefore, in light of the issue already being answered, and given that no permission was taken or granted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the petition deserves to succeed."

Mandatory Compliance:
The requirement under Section 115(4) is explicit and mandatory. Any action, such as search and seizure related to trademark offenses under Sections 103, 104, or 105, must be preceded by the satisfaction and authorization of a DSP-level officer.

Precedent and Consistency:
The court’s reliance on the precedent established in Crl.P.No.6096 of 2016 ensures consistency in legal interpretation and application. This case reinforces the principle that statutory mandates must be strictly followed to avoid procedural invalidity.

Quashing of Proceedings:
The quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.21775 of 2022 aligns with the legal requirement of prior permission, underscoring the importance of adherence to statutory procedures to uphold the legitimacy of legal actions.

Conclusion:
The court’s decision to quash the proceedings against the petitioner underscores the critical importance of obtaining prior permission under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, before lodging complaints under Sections 103, 104, or 105. This decision emphasizes the necessity of following procedural mandates to ensure the validity and legitimacy of legal actions.

Case Citation: V M Gopalakrishna Vs State of Karnataka: 19.06.2024: CRL.P.No. 2080 of 2023: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru: M.Nagaprasanna, H.J.

Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539