Toothpaste Battle| Delhi High Court Quashes Forgery Complaint by Anchor Against Colgate

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The Delhi High Court dismissed a forgery case brought by Anchor against Colgate. Anchor had accused Colgate of forging a document in a trademark infringement lawsuit against them. The court found insufficient evidence to support Anchor’s allegations of forgery.

Delhi HC Fines Man Rs.25,000 for Seeking Supreme Court Collegium Recommendations

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a forgery case filed by Anchor toothpaste against Colgate toothpaste and its officials. Anchor alleged that Colgate forged trademark registration documents and presented them to the court.

Justice Amit Sharma quashed the complaint case and the magistrate court’s summoning order dated April 2, 2012. The Court stated that, no evidence to suggest that Colgate had committed any forgery.

The court’s decision effectively cleared Colgate of the forgery allegations made by Anchor toothpaste. The case highlights the importance of substantiating claims with concrete evidence before pursuing legal action.

The order stated,

“The High Court has decreed that, in light of the aforementioned discourse, both the case CC No. 7/2/09, known as ‘Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt Ltd v KV Vaidyanathan & Ors’, and the summoning order dated April 2, 2012, issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, are hereby reversed and nullified,”

The court took into account the fact that the company Anchor filed an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the High Court. This application contained the same allegations as the complaint Anchor filed before the magistrate.

Section 340 of the CrPC gives the court the power to order a preliminary inquiry into offenses related to documents that have been submitted as evidence.

Justice Sharma concluded that the inquiry under Section 340 of the CrPC, as requested by Anchor, cannot be separated from the alleged forgery concerning the documents in question.

The Court stated,

“The Court determined that, as argued by Anchor, two separate offenses arose from the same transaction. For one set of offenses, a court complaint is mandatory; hence, it’s impossible to separate them. Consequently, the complaint regarding the other set of offenses, which does not require a court’s complaint, is untenable. Therefore, the present complaint should not have been acknowledged, and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance of it,”

Colgate and Anchor, two major toothpaste brands, have been embroiled in a legal dispute over the use of their respective red and white colour trademarks. According to Anchor’s case, Colgate failed to secure an interim injunction order and subsequently forged certain documents before filing a new lawsuit claiming a fresh cause of action.

Toothpaste Battle| Delhi High Court Quashes Forgery Complaint by Anchor Against Colgate

In response, Anchor filed a complaint against Colgate and its office bearers in the trial court, alleging that they committed offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including those related to the forgery of documents and making false claims before the court. Anchor’s key allegation is that Colgate and its officials colluded to present a forged and fabricated copy of a certificate of registration in the legal proceedings before the Delhi High Court.

The magistrate initially found that the trademark registration documents submitted by Colgate appeared to be forged. Based on this, the magistrate issued summons to Colgate and others.

However, the High Court disagreed with the trial court’s finding. The High Court ultimately quashed the case against Colgate.

Colgate, represented by a team of senior advocates and other lawyers, including Mukul Rohatgi, Arvind Nigam, Ramesh Gupta, and Arvind Varma.

The opposing side represented by Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain and other lawyers, appearing on behalf of Anchor.

Lawyers representing the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks, GL Verma, included Kunal Khanna, Swastik Bisarya, Vridhi Pasricha, Pravav Prasoon and Prakash Walia.

The Delhi Police, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Mukes Kumar.

Similar Posts