Ahmedabad: Gujarat High Court has quashed a criminal case under Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act filed against a trader for allegedly dealing in duplicate iPhone parts.
The seized products included wireless Bluetooth earbuds, cables, adapters, a smartwatch and various Apple-branded stickers and labels, collectively valued at Rs 15,11,193.
His advocate, Premal Rachh, argued that the seized goods were commercial hardware and accessories and did not qualify as “works” in which copyright subsists under Section 13 of the Copyright Act. A manager at Griffin Intellectual Property Service Pvt Ltd had lodged the FIR with Kalupur police claiming authorisation by Apple Inc to act against counterfeit Apple products. Police then raided Raj Cover House at Relief Road and seized allegedly counterfeit Apple products. Police filed criminal charges against proprietor Jitendra Kriplani. Kriplani moved the high court seeking quashing of the FIR. He submitted that the allegations, at best, related to trademark infringement, and that the police had failed to follow the mandatory procedure required under Trade Marks Act.
“The penal provisions under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, cannot be sustained or substituted, as the search, raid, and seizure were executed in flagrant breach of the mandatory provisions of Section 115(4) of the Trademarks Act, 1999,” HC said. The court further held that the raid was conducted by an unauthorised officer below the rank of DSP and there was no mandatory opinion by the Registrar of Trade Marks, which is not permissible.
After hearing the case, Justice P M Raval said that the allegations in the FIR “do not satisfy the statutory ingredients of Sections 13 and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, as commercial hardware does not constitute ‘artistic or literary works’”. After hearing the case, the high court held that cables, adapters and similar hardware are industrial products, and that misuse of brand identifiers is primarily an issue under Trade Marks Act, not Copyright Act, unless the FIR specifically establishes infringement of a copyrightable work. The court found that the FIR and seizure record did not disclose the recovery of instruction manuals or identifiable literary or artistic works. It also held that arguments based on photographs filed later could not cure the absence of necessary pleadings and seizure material.