The legal fraternity witnessed a seminal deliberation this year in the case of KG Marketing India v. Ms. Rashi Santosh Soni & Anr., adjudicated by a single-judge bench presided over by the Hon’ble Justice Prathibha M. Singh. This landmark case traversed the complex interplay between trademark infringement and the evidentiary challenges posed under the newly enacted criminal laws, particularly the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Court astutely analysed pivotal questions surrounding the applicability and scope of Section 531 of the BNSS, which governs the procedural framework for addressing forgery and fabrication of documents in the context of criminal jurisprudence.
The Contours of the Dispute
The dispute arose from a civil suit instituted by KG Marketing India, a leading name in the electrical appliances industry, alleging trademark infringement against certain individuals accused of unlawfully exploiting their registered trademark, “SURYA.” The plaintiff fortified their claims with a plethora of documentary evidence, including newspaper advertisements and miscellaneous invoices. These documents, intended to substantiate their exclusive rights, became the fulcrum of the litigation.
The Initial Injunction: A Legal Battle Unfolds
In the preliminary stages, the Hon’ble High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of KG Marketing India, effectively restraining the defendants from using the contentious “SURYA” trademark. However, this temporary relief catalysed a robust contest from the defendants, who countered by asserting their independent ownership of the “SURYA GOLD” trademark. They further questioned the genuineness of the plaintiff’s evidence, branding it as fabricated and unreliable.
The defendants’ challenge set the stage for an intricate legal examination of the authenticity and admissibility of the contested documents. This inquiry dovetailed into broader deliberations on the vires of Section 531 of the BNSS, raising critical questions about the interplay between civil remedies and the overarching ambit of criminal law mechanisms.
Impact of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (2023)
In adjudicating the contentious matter, Hon’ble Justice Prathibha M. Singh meticulously examined the ramifications of the newly enacted Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (2023) (BNSS). The Court reaffirmed that, as per the transitional provisions of the statute, any appeal, application, trial, or inquiry pending before the Sanhita’s commencement would be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), ensuring procedural continuity and safeguarding judicial parity.
- Bridging Legal Regimes
The Hon’ble Court further elucidated that Section 531 of the BNSS unequivocally mandates the continued application of the erstwhile CrPC for cases initiated prior to the Sanhita’s enforcement. This provision underscores the legislature’s intent to harmonise the adjudication of pending matters without disrupting the judicial process or creating inconsistencies in legal proceedings.
2. Forgery and Fabrication
In scrutinising the allegations of fraudulent representation and fabrication of evidence, the Court unequivocally concluded that the documentary submissions by sKG Marketing India were deliberately fabricated. These documents, the Court observed, were ostensibly manufactured to bolster the plaintiff’s market position and substantiate their claims of trademark ownership.
Invoking the provisions of Section 340 of the CrPC, the Court directed the Registrar General to initiate criminal proceedings against the plaintiff, underscoring the gravity of perjury and fraudulent conduct. The Registrar General was instructed to file a criminal complaint before the concerned judicial magistrate, thereby setting a stern precedent against the abuse of judicial processes.
3. Sanctions and Injunctions to Protect Intellectual Property Rights
In addition to criminal proceedings, the Court imposed a substantial fine of ₹5,00,000 on the plaintiff, payable to the defendant as compensatory damages. Furthermore, the Court issued a perpetual injunction against KG Marketing India, restraining them from using the trademark “Surya Gold” or any deceptively similar mark. This decisive action aimed to preserve the sanctity of intellectual property rights and deter future instances of infringement and fraudulent claims.
At Aumirah, we are at the forefront of guiding clients through the intricate intersections of trademark law and intellectual property disputes. Leveraging our deep expertise, we craft bespoke strategies to protect brands, address allegations of infringement, and ensure compliance with evolving legal frameworks like the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. Our dedicated team of legal professionals empowers businesses to confidently safeguard their market presence while navigating the complexities of procedural and evidentiary requirements under Indian IP law.
Conclusion
This case exemplifies the intricate complexities of trademark disputes, spotlighting the judiciary’s unwavering diligence in scrutinizing evidentiary authenticity and procedural compliance. It underscores the dual responsibility of companies to uphold integrity in safeguarding their intellectual property rights and the judiciary’s pivotal role in delivering equitable justice.
The decision in KG Marketing India v. Ms. Rashi Santosh Soni & Anr. serves as a clarion call for adherence to legal statutes and procedural rigour, reaffirming the paramount importance of authenticity and ethical conduct in the realm of intellectual property law.
