The Delhi High Court referenced the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita while hearing a trademark infringement case concerning the use of the mark ‘SURYA’. This case also touched upon matters of forgery and document fabrication.
New Delhi: In one of its first rulings referencing the new criminal law that took effect on July 1, the Delhi High Court cited the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in a trademark infringement case. This case also involved allegations of forgery and document fabrication.
The plaintiff, KG Marketing India, a prominent manufacturer of electrical appliances, filed a lawsuit against two individuals, seeking an injunction against the use of the mark ‘SURYA‘. KG Marketing claimed to be a leading market player in electrical appliances across India for the past six years, with its projects advertised in various newspapers. An interim order issued in its favour in January last year.
Read Also: PhonePe vs. DigiPe | Supreme Court Rejects PhonePe’s Trademark Infringement Claim
However, the defendants later sought to vacate the interim order, arguing that they held copyright ownership of several labels under the ‘SURYA GOLD’ mark. They also alleged that the documents submitted by KG Marketing, including newspaper advertisements and invoices, “fabricated.”
When considering if the proprietor of KG Marketing‘s actions warranted court intervention under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC),
A single-judge bench of Justice Prathiba Singh noted in a July 2 order,
“In these proceedings, since the application was pending when the new statutes Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) were enacted, the matter would continue under the erstwhile Code itself.”
The High Court clarified,
“According to Section 531 of BNSS, any appeal, application, trial, inquiry, or investigation pending before the Sanhita comes into force shall be disposed of, continued, held or made under 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.”
The High Court further clarified that the earlier statutes, namely the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), would apply in this case.
During the pendency of the plaintiff’s suit, the defendants initiated another suit to prevent KG Marketing from infringing on its design rights and using the mark ‘SURYA GOLD’. The defendants submitted the original newspapers as evidence, demonstrating that the newspapers cited by KG Marketing in its suit were fabricated. Subsequently, two affidavits filed, in which the proprietor of KG Marketing issued an apology for “submitting fabricated newspapers.”
Read Also: Delhi High Court Takes Action Against Fraudulent Use of ‘IKEA Trademark’
Noting the gravity of forgery, Justice Singh remarked,
“Although the alleged fabrication of the newspaper might have been done earlier, the affidavit filed before the Court makes a categorical assertion that the document is true and there is no false statement or concealment of any document. The authenticity of these documents has been initially vouched for by the Deponent (proprietor of KG Marketing) who has now admitted that the documents are fabricated. Therefore, the offence has taken place once the suit was filed before this court and the document was relied upon for obtaining relief.”
The High Court also observed,
“KG Marketing only admitted to the forgery and fabrication of the newspapers after the defendants presented the original newspaper; prior to this, KG Marketing had submitted and relied on the fabricated newspapers in its lawsuit as if they were genuine. “
The court concluded,
“The affidavit sworn clearly false and contrary to the recently sworn affidavit, which admitted the forgery and fabrication. This, in the opinion of this court, discloses an offence of forgery, fabrication, and filing of a false affidavit, which clearly calls for the lodging of a complaint under Section 340 CrPC,”
Observing that “reliance on a forged and fabricated document cannot go unpunished,” Justice Singh instructed the High Court’s registrar general to file a complaint with the concerned judicial magistrate within four weeks. Additionally, the High Court dismissed KG Marketing’s lawsuit, imposing costs of Rs 5 lakh and prohibiting the company from using the ‘SURYA GOLD’ mark.