While noticing that mandatory provisions are breached in registering the FIR and the complainant has failed to establish that he has the authority to file a complaint, the Gujarat High Court held that the complainant cannot give an opinion that the accused is applying trade mark/trade description or falsifying and falsely applying trade mark of the complaint without taking the opinion of the Registrar for infringement of trade mark.

Finding that in the present case, the FIR does not disclose obtaining an opinion of the Registrar, a Single Judge Bench of Justice J.C Doshi observed that “the police officer who on the complaint has searched that accused is applying trade mark and trade description of the complaint or falsifying and falsely apply trade mark of the complaint is required to take the opinion of the Registrar for infringement of Trade Mark prior to search and seizure.

Advocate Sachin D. Vasavada appeared for the Applicant, whereas Advocate Apurva Dave appeared for the Respondent.

The brief facts of the case were that the petitioner is carrying out the business of selling auto parts in Ahmedabad City in the name and style of Rushab Automobiles. One Sanjay Kumar Verma having claimed that he is an officer of IPR Vigilance India Company and has contracts with various companies to file FIR. In 2013, he received a tip that Rushab Automobiles, owner of the petitioner / accused is selling duplicate parts of the Hyundai motor company. Upon receipt of such tip, the complainant approached CID and consequent thereto shop of the petitioner was raided by the police. On finding that spare parts of Hyundai motor company at the shop were duplicates, an FIR was registered for the offence under sections 101, 102, 103, 104, and 105 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999.

After considering the submission, the Bench found from a perusal of the FIR, that complainant claims himself as Officer of IPR (Vigilance) and further claims that he has the authority to lodge a complaint on behalf of IPR (Vigilance) for lodging an offence of selling duplicate auto parts.

“Perusal of the FIR along with charge sheet papers, nothing discloses to indicate that complainant was authorized to file a complaint on behalf of Hyundai Motor Company or on behalf of IPR (Vigilance). The investigation does not disclose that there was a contract between IPR (Vigilance) and Hyundai Motor Company which permits a complainant to search for selling of duplicate auto parts and lodging complaint”, added the Bench.

Thus, the High Court clarified that FIR must fail in the absence of appropriate authorization.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR.

Cause Title: Mihir Surendrabhai Shah v. State of Gujarat and Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Gujarat High CourtJustice J.C. Doshi

Pankaj Bajpai