Civil Dispute Should Not Be Mischaracterized Into Criminal Disputes Says Madhya Pradesh High Court In Ownership Dispute Over 'SACHAMOTI' Trademark
Siddhi Nigam
31 July 2024 2:16 PM GMT
Indore, July 29, 2024 — In a significant development, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, presided over by Hon'ble Shri Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi, heard the Misc. Criminal Case No. 43601 of 2022 involving Gopal Sabu and others versus the State of Madhya Pradesh and others. The case highlights an ongoing civil dispute over the ownership of the trademark 'SACHAMOTI', which has been mischaracterized as a criminal matter.
The primary issue revolves around the ownership of the 'SACHAMOTI' trademark, which is currently under litigation in the Delhi High Court. Both parties involved in the case have pending civil suits concerning the rightful ownership of the mark. The Delhi High Court, on January 22, 2020, issued an order restraining both parties from claiming themselves as the true owners of 'SACHAMOTI' in their advertisements, though it allowed them to continue advertising their products. This order underscores the unresolved nature of the trademark dispute, which is yet to reach a definitive conclusion.
A criminal complaint was filed by the respondent, leading to an FIR and subsequent police action. The petitioners, Gopal Sabu and others, contend that the civil dispute has been mischaracterized as a criminal matter, with the opposing party seeking to leverage criminal proceedings to gain an advantage in the ongoing civil litigation.
The petitioner argues that the proceedings should be quashed on the grounds of mala fide intent and abuse of legal process. The Petitioner cited cases such as R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab (1960), State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992) to contend that the proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.
The petitioner argues that the investigation and trial are invalid due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Trademark Act, 1999. Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. empowers a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct a search and seizure without a warrant if satisfied that an offence related to trademark infringement has been, is being, or is likely to be committed. However, before undertaking such actions, the police officer must obtain the Registrar's opinion on the facts involved and abide by it. The petitioners allege that this procedural safeguard was not followed, rendering the police actions unlawful and arbitrary. Citing the Mihir Surendrabhai Shah vs. State of Gujarat (2023) case, The petitioner argues that the FIR must fail due to the absence of appropriate authorization.
The respondent, Rajkumar Sabu, argued that the mere pendency of a civil suit did not bar the initiation of criminal proceedings. They relied on various judgments, including M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh (2001) and Rashida Kamaluddin Syed v. Shaikh Saheblal Mardan (2007), to assert that both civil and criminal proceedings could run concurrently.
In his judgment, Hon'ble Shri Justice Binod Kumar noted that the essence of the dispute is civil, rooted in the contested ownership of the 'SACHAMOTI' trademark. He further expressed concern over the apparent transformation of a civil matter into a criminal case, stating that such practices undermine the integrity of the legal system. The court highlighted the need for the Registrar's opinion as mandated by Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, which was evidently not sought in this instance.
The court quashed the FIR and subsequent police actions, directing the parties to resolve their dispute through the appropriate civil litigation channels.
Case title: Gopal Sabu And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Other
Citation: MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 43601 of 2022
