The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the petition of the accused for using the brand name of another company in violation of the Copy Rights Act.
The Division Bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Gautam Chowdhary passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Brijesh @ Bhola.
By way of this petition, the accused-petitioner prays for quashing of the first information report dated 15.01.2022 registered in Case under Sections 420, 468, 469, 481, 482, 483, 485, 486, 487, 488 I.P.C, Section 63, 65 of CopyRight Act (Amendment) 1957 and Sections 103, 104 of Trade Mark Act, 1999, Police Station Tajganj, District Agra and also for staying his arrest in respect of the first information report.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither there is infringement of CopyRight (Amended) Act 1957 nor Trade Marks Act, 1999 and due to business rivalry, the respondents has lodged the F.I.R when in fact, the petitioner has nowhere used the name of Panchi Petha, which is the firm of the respondents.
He further submitted that the Magistrate has allowed the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C which has resulted into lodgement of the impugned F.I.R.
He further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on the ground that he is running a business of Petha and Dalmoth in the name and style of Petha Dalmoth without using the trademark of Panchi Petha.
Counsel has next argued that prior to running of aforesaid business by the petitioner, the petitioner was working as a Manager in the firm of Panchi Petha from 2015 to 2020, whereas the petitioner started his own business after the lockdown in the country.
It is lastly argued that since the petitioner was working as Manager in the firm of Panchi Petha, thereafter started his own business, due to which the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case.
“We have perused the documentary evidence. The Panchi logo on the petitioner’s firm before the word “Petha” gives us the impression that the firm is representing “Panchi Petha”, which is the firm of the respondents. This fact prima facie can very well be ascertained with the photograph of the paper book. Therefore, we cannot entertain this petition, as it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out. The exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised against the petitioner. We fortified our view in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in the matter of Arun Bhandari Vs State of U.P and others reported in 2013 (2) S.C.C”, the Court observed while dismissing the writ petition.