Gujarat High Court Refuses To Quash Case Over Fake Honda Parts, Says Logo Can Be Copyrighted

On 30 September, the Gujarat High Court refused to quash a criminal case against businessman Atul Bhalerao Patil over the seizure of counterfeit Honda scooter accessories and 250 loose stickers bearing the Honda Wing Logo.

Justice P. M. Raval dismissed Patil's petition after police seized duplicate Honda Activa accessories worth over Rs. 7 lakh, including goods worth Rs. 4,65,650 from his unit in Ahmedabad, along with the stickers. The Bench observed:

“Where the accused is found in possession of 250 loose counterfeit logo stickers, reproducing the exact artistic graphic of the brand owner without a license, an independent criminal cause of action for copyright infringement under Section 63 is clearly made out.”

The police had raided two premises in Ahmedabad in December 2021 after receiving information from Honda's representative. They seized duplicate Honda Activa accessories worth over Rs. 7 lakh, including the goods from Patil's unit, along with 250 stickers carrying the Honda Wing Logo. An FIR was subsequently registered under the Copyright Act, 1957.

Patil sought to quash the case, arguing that the sale of counterfeit branded parts was a trade mark matter and that the police had invoked the Copyright Act to avoid the safeguards under the Trade Marks Act. Those safeguards require a search to be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police after obtaining the Registrar's opinion. In this case, a Police Inspector conducted the search.

He also argued that copyright protection ceases when a design is industrially reproduced and that Honda's copyright registration certificate was not filed with the charge-sheet.

Honda and the State submitted that the logo is a registered artistic work and that the registration certificate records that it is not registered as a design. They argued that the 250 stickers established unauthorised reproduction of the logo.

The Court held that copyright and trade mark remedies can operate independently and rejected the argument that the Trade Marks Act safeguards restricted the police action under the Copyright Act. It held:

“apply exclusively to offences prosecuted under Chapter XII of the Trade Marks Act and cannot be imported to restrict or nullify powers under Section 64 of the Copyright Act.”

Further, the Bench noted that the Copyright Act permits an officer of the rank of Sub-Inspector or above to seize infringing copies. It therefore found no illegality in the Police Inspector conducting the search.

On Patil's argument that copyright protection ends when a design is industrially reproduced, it held that the bar applies only to works capable of being registered as designs. It found that a brand logo is excluded from the definition of a design. It also rejected the challenge based on Honda's copyright registration certificate not being annexed to the charge-sheet. It held:

“The mere administrative lapse of the Investigating Officer in not annexing a copy of the registration certificate with the charge-sheet is a procedural irregularity curable during trial.”

The Bench also said questions such as whether Patil had purchase bills or whether the stickers were genuine were matters for the trial court. It held that it could not conduct a pre-trial mini-investigation while considering a petition to quash the criminal proceedings.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition and directed the trial court to proceed without being influenced by the observations made in the judgment. It also extended the interim protection Patil had enjoyed since 2023 by six weeks to enable him to approach the Supreme Court.