The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench has held that storing or selling counterfeit products bearing the name of a company does not amount to infringement of copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957. It held that there is a difference between using a company’s logo and using its name, and that in the absence of any allegation that the name or logo is an artistic work in which copyright subsists, no offence under Sections 51 and 63 of the Act is made out.

The Court held that such a case is, at most, one of selling counterfeit goods covered by Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Since Section 115(4) of that Act permits search and seizure only by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, it found that the raid conducted by a Police Sub-Inspector was illegal and the FIR vitiated.

A Single Bench of Justice M.W. Chandwani observed, “It is the specific case of the complainant that the applicant was found storing counterfeit Tin sheets having the name of the Company printed on it. This act does not amount to infringement of copyright within the meaning of the Act of 1957…”.

“…Needless to mention that there is difference between using a Logo of a Company and name of a Company. That apart, it is not alleged in the FIR that either the Logo or the name of the Company is an Artistic work, which is a condition for existence of Copyright. There is no whisper in the entire FIR that the name ‘JSW Steel Ltd.’ is an Artistic work either created by the Company or by an artist and the right is assigned to the said company. Thus, there is no allegation in the FIR that the Company was having any copyright in the name of the Company nor infringement of the said copyright has been alleged”, the Bench had also noted.

Advocate Shoeb Asgar Khan appeared for the applicant and Abhijeet G. Mate, APP appeared for the respondent.

The complainant, an investigating officer with EIPR (India) Pvt. Ltd., was authorised by JSW Steel Ltd. to act against counterfeiters. On January 28, 2026, after obtaining oral permission from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, he raided the applicant’s shop at Saoner along with a police party, and found 137 tin sheets bearing the name ‘JSW Steel Ltd 0.50 mm’, valued at Rs. 1,57,550. An FIR was registered the same day under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act.

The applicant sought quashing under Section 528 of the BNSS, contending that the FIR alleged only counterfeiting and not copyright infringement, and that the investigation was not carried out by an officer of the requisite rank. The complainant contended that the company’s logo is an artistic work, that registration is not necessary to claim copyright, and that an FIR is not an encyclopaedia.

The Court noted that under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, copyright subsists in classes of works including original artistic works, and that even a logo can attract copyright if it qualifies as an artistic work. However, the FIR alleged only the use of the company’s name, not its logo, and contained no averment that the name was an artistic work or that the company held any copyright in it.

Distinguishing Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others (2021) and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramjan Khan and others (2024), it observed that while an FIR need not be an encyclopaedia, it must disclose a cognizable offence, relying on Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand and Others (2024). It found that the case fell within the first category in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, and that the FIR was an abuse of the process of the Court.

Cause Title: Shadab Sheikh Qayyum Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:15223)

Appearances:

Applicant: Advocates Shoeb Asgar Khan and Syed Salman Ali

Respondent: APP Abhijeet G. Mate, Advocates Kartik N. Shukul and Gaurav Khatwani

Click here to read/download the Judgment




Justice M.W. ChandwaniBombay High Court

Agatha Shukla