Case at a Glance
Acting for JSW Steel Ltd., an anti-counterfeiting agency raided a hardware shop in Saoner with the police and seized 137 tin sheets marked ‘JSW Steel Ltd 0.50 mm’, worth Rs 1,57,550. An FIR was registered only under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Justice M.W. Chandwani held that printing a company’s name is different from using its logo, that the FIR did not allege any artistic work or copyright in the name, and that the case was at most one of selling counterfeit goods under Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act. Since such a search must be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and this one was led by a Sub-Inspector, the FIR was quashed.
EIPR (India) Pvt. Ltd. was authorised by JSW Steel Ltd. to act against counterfeit products bearing the company’s name, and its investigating officer was the complainant. On 28 January 2026 he received information that counterfeit tin sheets marked ‘JSW Steel Ltd 0.50 mm’ were being sold in Saoner. After informing the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagpur Rural, and obtaining oral permission, he raided the applicant’s shop on the Saoner–Chhindwara Road with a police party and panchas, and 137 sheets valued at Rs 1,57,550 were seized.
FIR No. 62/2026 was registered the same day at Police Station Saoner under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The shop owner applied under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash it, arguing that this was at most a case of selling counterfeit goods, not copyright infringement, and that the search had been conducted by a Sub-Inspector. The complainant argued that the company’s logo is an artistic work protected without registration, that an FIR need not be an encyclopaedia, and that quashing was premature.
The Key Question Before the Court
Does selling goods bearing a company’s printed name amount to copyright infringement under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act, and can a Trade Marks Act-type search be led by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police?
Name Versus Logo, and Who May Search
The Court accepted that under Section 13 of the Copyright Act a logo can be protected as an artistic work. But the FIR alleged only that the company’s name was printed on the sheets; it did not allege that the name was an artistic work or that copyright in it vested in the company. As the Court put it, “there is difference between using a Logo of a Company and name of a Company.” Storing such goods did not amount to copyright infringement; at most the conduct could fall under Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which deals with selling goods with a false trade mark.
Under Sections 115(3) and 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, search and seizure for such offences must be carried out by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Here the search was conducted by a Police Sub-Inspector, so the registration of the FIR and the investigation were vitiated. Accepting that an FIR is not an encyclopaedia, the Court held, relying on Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand, that it must still disclose a cognizable offence. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 04 SC CK 0024 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramjan Khan, (2024) 10 SC CK 0018 did not help the complainant. Taking the allegations at face value, no offence under Sections 51 and 63 was made out, bringing the case within the first category of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1990) 11 SC CK 0008; the FIR was quashed.
What the Court Actually Held
- Printing a company’s name on goods is not the same as using its logo; without an allegation that the name is an artistic work in which the company holds copyright, Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act are not attracted.
- Selling or storing such counterfeit goods could at most fall under Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
- Search and seizure for such offences must be by an officer not below Deputy Superintendent of Police rank; a raid led by a Sub-Inspector vitiated the FIR and investigation.
- FIR No. 62/2026 under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act was quashed under Bhajan Lal category (1).
Why This Judgment Matters
- Brand owners and their agencies often register counterfeit cases under the Copyright Act; the ruling shows the offence must match the right actually infringed.
- It reinforces the statutory safeguard that only senior police officers may search and seize in trade mark offence cases.
- Traders facing raids by private anti-counterfeiting agencies can test both the charge and the rank of the searching officer.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Traders and Brand Owners
- A shopkeeper selling goods with a brand’s printed name faces, at most, a trade mark offence, not a copyright case, on this ruling.
- Brand owners should frame complaints under the correct statute and plead the specific right infringed.
- Insist that searches in trade mark cases be led by an officer of at least Deputy Superintendent rank.
For Counsel
- Check whether the FIR alleges an artistic work and ownership of copyright; a bare company name is not enough.
- Raise Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act where the search was conducted by a junior officer.
- Use Somjeet Mallick to answer the ‘FIR is not an encyclopaedia’ argument: it must still disclose a cognizable offence.
Key Takeaways
- Company name is not a logo; no copyright offence without an artistic work.
- Counterfeit goods case is, at most, Section 104 Trade Marks Act.
- Searches must be by an officer not below DSP rank; a Sub-Inspector’s raid was illegal.
- FIR under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act quashed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is selling fake goods with a brand name a copyright offence?
Not merely because the brand’s name is printed, on this ruling. The Court held that a company’s name is different from its logo and that, absent an allegation of an artistic work and copyright, Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act do not apply.
What law applies to counterfeit branded goods then?
The Court said the case was at most one of selling counterfeit goods under Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Who can search a shop for trade mark offences?
Under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. A raid led by a Sub-Inspector vitiated the FIR here.
Conclusion
The judgment is a reminder that anti-counterfeiting action must follow the statute that actually fits the facts. A copyright FIR over a printed company name could not survive, and the procedural safeguard on who may search was not a technicality the police could skip.
Practical takeaway: In counterfeit-goods raids, check first whether the right pleaded is copyright or trade mark, and then the rank of the officer who conducted the search; either can be fatal to the FIR.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com