NEW HARIOM INDUSTRIES Vs. DANDI SALT P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the Petitioner confines his relief to quashing of FIR No. 240/2009 under Section 63 of the Copyright Act registered on the complaint of the Respondent. Though in the petition other reliefs such as direction to the Respondent not to conduct raid at his business premises have also been sought, however said prayers have not been pressed during arguments.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner contends that both the parties are carrying on business at Gujarat and are well-known to each other. Despite knowledge about the Petitioners, search warrants were taken against unknown persons. Subsequently, even the copyright of the Respondent has been cancelled and thus it cannot claim violation of the copyright qua the Petitioners. LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner contends that no document has been filed by the Respondent to show that it was a prior user. Even perusal of the two labels show that there is nothing common and the two labels are clearly distinct in colour and design. Further, in the complaint nothing has been placed except the labels and hence it cannot be proved that there was deceptive similarity.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts as set out in the FIR registered on the complaint of the Respondent are that it is an old established company having countrywide manufacturing, marketing and sale of salt since 2000. The Respondent adopted the trademark/label Dandi? in respect of salt and other related auto parts and has been continuously using the same. The word Dandi? has been derived from the Respondent?s trade name and is an substantial and essential part of the tradename M/s Dandi Salt Pvt. Ltd. The Respondent had created and adopted an artistic wrapper/packaging in the year 2000 which was continuously used by them. The wrapper/packaging of the Respondent is unique in its feature/make-up/goodwill and production in the business of salt using the trademark Dandi and Dandi label. The Respondent had applied and the label of the Respondent was duly registered under the provisions of Indian Copyright Act, 1957. The Respondent further claimed to be the proprietor of the said trademark/label in respect of the said goods on account of its prior adoption and continuous user being the originator and owner of the dandi label. According to the Respondent some unscrupulous manufacturers/traders/persons/firms unknown to the Respondent had brought the goods through goods-train, which were lying in the railway yard, Aadarsh Nagar, Delhi under the false trademark/label/copyright/packaging thus violating the Respondent?s trademark/copyright and its proprietary right therein. Thus it was alleged that the accused has harmed the goodwill and reputation of the company. On the basis of the said complaint search warrants were issued and on recovery of the goods the abovementioned FIR was registered. The principal contention of the Petitioners is that Respondent knew the Petitioners as both of them were manufacturing and selling goods in Gujarat, it could not have obtained warrants against unknown person and thus the search warrants and the consequent registration of FIR thereon is liable to be quashed on this ground itself.