Trademark, Not Copyright Dispute: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Over Fake Zara and Calvin Klein Apparel

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against two traders accused of selling counterfeit Zara and Calvin Klein clothing.

The court held that the allegations disclosed a trademark-related offence and not offences under the Copyright Act for which the FIR had been registered.

Justice M.W. Chandwani observed that the prosecution's own case was that the two men were selling garments bearing the labels of the brands. It was not the prosecution's case that they were claiming copyright in the goods or manufacturing shirts and pants bearing the Zara and Calvin Klein brand names.

"The specific case of the prosecution is that he was found selling counterfeit goods containing the labels of different brands. These facts do not amount to infringement of copyrights within the meaning of Copyright Act," the court held.

The case arose from an FIR registered at Kotwali Police Station in Nagpur against Sandip Dube and Sushant Gandhamwar under the Copyright Act. The complaint was lodged by a field officer of Netrika Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. The company is authorised by Zara and Calvin Klein to protect their proprietary rights and assist in anti-counterfeiting action.

According to the charge sheet, the seized goods included 16 shirts and 144 cotton trousers bearing the Zara label. The police also recovered nine half pants and 11 T-shirts carrying the Zara label, along with three half pants bearing the Calvin Klein label.

While examining the allegations, the court noted that copyright protection under the Copyright Act extends to original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works. It also extends to cinematograph films and sound recordings.

"In light of the above-said discussion, it is evident that Copyright cannot be claimed for the goods and services as recorded above, at least not under the provisions for which the FIR is registered," the court observed.

A second flaw was found in the investigation. The court noted that searches and seizures without a warrant in such cases can be carried out only by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

In the present case, however, the search and seizure had been conducted by a Police Sub-Inspector. The court found this to be contrary to the statutory requirement.

"Thus the mandatory provisions of the Act of 1999 have not been complied with. Therefore, registration of the FIR and consequent investigation thereon is vitiated," the court held.

The State argued that charges had already been framed and the matter had reached the evidence stage. The court rejected the submission. It held that framing of charges could not prevent quashing where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, did not constitute the offences invoked.

The court consequently quashed the FIR, the charge sheet and the criminal case pending against the two applicants.