M/S KG Marketing India V. Ms. Rashi Santosh Soni & Anr.

Introduction

On 2nd July 2024, a single – judge bench of the Delhi High Court presided by Hon’ble Justice Pratibha M. Singh deliberated upon the pertinent issues involving infringement of trademarks along with authenticity of documents under the new set of criminal laws. While dealing with a matter of forgery and fabrication of documents in a trademark infringement dispute, the Hon’ble High Court has also specified the vires and applicability of Section 531 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) which pertains to the applicability of the new criminal laws.

According to the facts of the case, a civil suit was filed by M/S KG Marketing India which holds a prominent position in the Indian electrical appliance market against certain individuals accused of infringing their registered trademark “Surya” which was backed by various documentary evidences in form of newspaper advertisements and miscellaneous invoices. Considering the claims of the applicant which were backed by various evidences, initially an interim injunction was granted in favour of KG Marketing India which prevented the defendants from using the disputed trademark which was further contested by the defendants by claiming the use of “Surya Gold” mark along with challenging the veracity and authenticity of the evidence provided by KG Marketing India by alleging it to be fabricated.

Impact of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023

While adjudicating the matter, Justice Pratibha Singh noted that it has already been provided in the new statute that any appeal, application, trial or enquiry pending before the commencement of the Sanhita would be handled according to the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and would operate as if the Sanhita has not come into effect. Additionally, Section 531 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) would also stipulate the management of such cases according to the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure in order to create a parity between the cases in the judicial framework.

Moreover, while adjudicating upon the allegations of fraudulent representation of fabricated evidences, the court noted that such fabrication of documents was clearly done for the purpose of the suit in order to establish their market presence, therefore attracting the applicability of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and directing the Registrar General to proceed with a criminal complaint against the accused which would be filed in the court of the concerned Judicial Magistrate along with a fine of Rs. 5 Lakhs payable to the defendant in the present case. Additionally, an injunction was also imposed against the KG Marketing India restraining them from using the trademark “Surya – Gold” or any other related trademark in order to protect the intellectual property rights of the holder and prevent any future infringement.

Conclusion

The present case has acted as a landmark judgment pertaining to the applicability of the new criminal laws in the domain of intellectual property rights and determining the process of adjudication of disputes. The judgment has also acted as a precedent towards determining the reference to old versus new criminal laws in order to decide upon various issues such as presenting fake evidence or other criminal actions.

The copy of the judgment can be accessed here.