Delhi High Court Refers To Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita For First Time While Dealing With Forgery In Trademark Dispute

The Delhi High Court has referred to Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for the first time after it came into effect on July 01, while dealing with the issue of forgery and fabrication of documents by a party in a trademark infringement dispute.In a ruling passed on July 02, Justice Prathiba M Singh dealt with a suit wherein two newspaper advertisements relied upon by the plaintiff, KG Marketing, were forged and fabricated. The fabrication was admitted by the entity's proprietor in both his affidavits and statement given before the Court. Justice Singh observed that the fabrication of the newspapers was done for the purpose of the suit. While adjudicating as to whether such fabrication by the proprietor of KG Marketing called for action by the court under Section 340 of CrPC, the court said:“In these proceedings, since the application was pending when the new statutes Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, 'BNS') and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, 'BNSS') were enacted, the matter would continue under the erstwhile Code itself. This is also clear from Section 531 of the `Bhartiya Nagrik Sakshya Sanhita'. (sic)”Section 531 of BNSS states that if immediately before the date on which the Sanhita comes into force, there is any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending, then, such appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation shall be disposed of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as in force immediately before such commencement, as if the Sanhita had not come into force.Accordingly, the court said that the earlier Codes i.e., CrPC and IPC would be the applicable statutes in the matter. KG Marketing, manufacturer of electrical appliances, filed the suit against two individuals seeking an injunction against the use of the mark 'SURYA' and the accompanying trade dress. Apart from claiming huge sales, KG Marketing also claimed that its projects have been advertised in various newspapers. An ex parte ad interim injunction was granted in its favour in January last year as per the pleadings. Later, the defendants, who claimed copyrighted works under the mark “SURYA GOLD”, alleged that the documents filed by KG Marketing being the newspaper advertisements and invoices were fabricated only for the purposes of the suit.The injunction was vacated after proprietor of KG Marketing gave instructions to the counsel to withdraw the suit and consented for vacation of the ex-parte order. In the meantime, the defendants filed another suit seeking to injunct KG Marketing from infringing its design rights and from using the mark 'SURYA GOLD'. The Defendants filed the original newspapers to establish that the newspapers relied upon KG Marketing in its suit were fabricated.Thereafter, two affidavits were filed wherein apology was tendered by the proprietor of K.G. Marketing for having filed the fabricated newspapers. Observing that forgery and fabrication are a serious matter, Justice Singh said that until the Defendants pointed out the original newspaper, KG Marketing did not admit to forgery or fabrication of the newspapers.“Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the offence of forgery/fabrication of newspapers having been admitted and the filing of false affidavit having taken place during the proceedings being pending before this Court, a case is made out for registration of a complaint under Section 340 CrPC,” the court said. It directed the Registrar General of the High Court to take action within four weeks and lodge a complaint with the concerned Judicial Magistrate. The court dismissed KG Marketing's suit filed on the basis of forged and fabricated newspapers with costs of Rs.5 lakh. It decreed the defendants' suit and restrained KG Marketing India from using the mark 'SURYA GOLD'. KG Marketing was also directed to pay costs of Rs. 5 lakh to the defendants. Counsel for Plaintiff: Mr. Dushyant K. Mahant, Mr. Deepak Dhyani, Ms. Anshima Puri & Mr. Karan Kumar, AdvsCounsel for Defendants: Mr. Alankar Kirpekar and Mr. Jaspreet Singh Kapur, AdvsTitle: M/S KG MARKETING INDIA v. MS. RASHI SANTOSH SONI & ANR.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 745Click here to read order

Delhi High Court Refers To Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita For First Time While Dealing With Forgery In Trademark Dispute

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags