In a surprising judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently overturned an FIR along with additional charges under the Copyright Act and Trademark Act filed against one Arun Kumar for selling clothes that bear fake labels of the well known brand Puma. In the past, the Copyright Act and Trademark Act became mainly the instruments of the companies and creators to fight counterfeiting. Both rights are meant to prevent others from infringing on them both legally and civilly, but counterfeiters who have become sophisticated make it difficult for the system to cope with. This case presents a clean example of how a system of law, (when) manipulated, can instead of prosecuting such cases, act as a hindrance in IP protection. Arun Kumar, the appellant, was arrested in 2017 when the police assembled a neat set of Puma-like garments in his factory. At first, the authorities pressed copyright theft and subsequently, trademarks count criminalization against him. Thus, it is a complex network of legal actions that takes the center of the High Court’s judgment.
Although the facts of the case are undeniable, fake products being sold under a global brand name, it did not make the situation a simple one legally. The court was guided by the question of whether the sale of garments with counterfeit labels could be properly prosecuted under the relevant of the Copyright Act. After reviewing the contents of the Act, especially, Section 13, the court has concluded that such sales do not fall under copyright infringement. In particular case of Copyright Law, which was designed to protect authors, a counterfeit act in the apparel industry is not necessarily the right action.
On the one hand, it may be the case that the issue of glossy appeal lies in the counterfeit goods hawked under a globally renowned brand name but on the other hand, the juridical circumstances did not look simple at all. For the court, it was a question of whether the offense of selling of the forged items packaged in the published labels could be categorized as the infringement of articles of the Copyright Act. The court, after close consultation of regulation elements especially with section 13, concluded that such sales do not constitute copyright infringement. The copyright law is supposed to save the artists and inventors from the zero the sane society of a copyright-free world, yet it sometimes fails to devise effective solutions for counterfeit issues even within the cloth industry, let alone the more complex ones.
The court also highlighted the fact that in some instances, there were serious violations of the procedure according to the Trademark Act. The law says a trademark infringement case will warrant a police officer of at least the rank of a Deputy Superintendent in connection with search and seizure. On the other hand, in this event, it was reported that a mere inspector conducted the search; it was thereby flouting the appropriate procedure. This procedural blunder not just made the search legally invalid; it was the direct cause of all the charges against the petitioner being dropped as well.
It’s both a wake-up call and a challenge for reform for the international brands that frequently face issues with counterfeiting. The verdict leads to a pertinent question: should copyright law be enhanced so that it can provide solutions to the counterfeit issues? It then shows that while copyright claims themselves can be a powerful weapon in the fight against infringements, the scope of the law ought to be revisited. The law needs to stand effective against the sophisticated nature of the counterfeit industry. Ahead, it will be even more important for lawmakers as well as businesses to question all the ways in which laws regarding intellectual property can change toward giving better protection against the emerging current tide of counterfeiting.
Ultimately, it becomes an important juncture for the legal system to once again weigh its need for enforcing strong measures with that of meeting fair procedures. Intellectual property law is evolving rapidly and so must the arsenal against modern counterfeiting. The verdict may well lay down the precedent but is also a pointer to something bigger about how law could better adapt to new challenges on matters of intellectual property protection.
Authors: Mahima Gupta & Nishita Neelanjana