No Copyright in Manufacture, Sale of Garments: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Case Against Fake Puma Seller
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ruled that there can be no copyright protection in the manufacture and sale of garments. This observation was made while quashing a criminal case against a man accused of manufacturing and selling garments under a fake Puma label.
Justice Karamjit Singh, referencing Section 13 of the Copyright Act, which outlines the types of works eligible for copyright protection, stated, “As per Section 13 of the Act of 1957, Copyright could subsist with regard to the afore-stated classes of works. There could be thus no Copyright in manufacture and sale of garments. Thus, prima facie, the prosecution has failed to prove infringement of the provisions of Act of 1957, punishable under Sections 63 and 65 of the said Act.” On this basis, the Court quashed the copyright infringement charges against the accused.
Additionally, the Court dismissed a trademark infringement case against the accused due to non-compliance with procedural requirements under the Trade Marks Act.
The accused, Arun Kumar, was charged by Jalandhar Police in 2017 under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act for allegedly infringing the copyright of the brand Puma. Subsequently, the trial court framed additional charges against him for trademark infringement under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act.
In its judgment dated November 25, the Court clarified that copyright does not extend to the manufacture and sale of garments, thus invalidating the charges under the Copyright Act.
With regard to trademark infringement, the Court noted procedural violations during the investigation. Specifically, it pointed out that the case was investigated by an Inspector, Vijay Kumar, in contravention of Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This provision mandates that cases involving trademark infringement be investigated by a police officer of a rank not lower than Deputy Superintendent of Police.
The Court further observed that the investigating officer had failed to obtain the opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks prior to conducting search and seizure, as required under the Act. Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution under both the Copyright Act and the Trade Marks Act was not legally tenable.
"In light of the above, the prosecution of the petitioner under the provisions of Section 63 and 65 of the Act of [Copyright] 1957 and under Section 103 and 104 of the [Trade Marks] Act of 1999 is not legally sustainable," the Court stated, thereby quashing the criminal proceedings against Kumar.
Case title: Arun Kumar V/s State of Punjab & Another
Date: November-25-2024
Bench: Justice Karamjit Singh
[Read/Download order]
