No copyright in manufacture, sale of clothes: P&H High Court quashes case against PUMA copy

There can be no copyright in the manufacture and sale of garments, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed while quashing a case filed against a man accused of manufacturing and illegally selling garments under a fake Puma label [Arun Kumar vs State of Punjab and Another]..Justice Karamjit Singh, after going through Section 13 of the Copyright Act which details the works in which copyright subsists, said,“As per Section 13 of the Act of 1957, Copyright could subsist with regard to the afore-stated classes of works. There could be thus no Copyright in manufacture and sale of garments. Thus, prima facie, the prosecution has failed to prove infringement of the provisions of Act of 1957, punishable under Sections 63 and 65 of the said Act.”Accordingly, the Court quashed the charges of copyright infringement against the accused. The Court also quashed a case of trademark infringement against the man on the ground of non-compliance with the procedure prescribed under the Trade Marks Act..The accused, one Arun Kumar, was booked by the Jalandhar Police in 2017 under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act for allegedly infringing on the copyright of the popular brand, Puma.The trial court later also framed additional charges against him for trademark infringement under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act..In its November 25 order, the Court quashed the case under the Copyright Act on the ground that no copyright subsists in manufacture and sale of garments. As regards trademark infringement, the Court found that the mandate under the Trade Marks Act was not followed in this case.“The case was investigated by Inspector Vijay Kumar in violation of the provision of Section 115(4) of the Act of 1999, which provides that in a case relating to infringement of the provisions of Trade Mark Act 1999, the matter is to be investigated by the police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police," the Court explained. .It further noted that the opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks was not obtained by the investigating officer before going for search and seizure as per the mandate of the Act.Thus, it concluded that the prosecution of the accused under the Copyright Act as well as the Trade Marks Act was not legally sustainable. "In light of the above, the prosecution of the petitioner under the provisions of Section 63 and 65 of the Act of [Copyright] 1957 and under Section 103 and 104 of the [Trade Marks] Act of 1999 is not legally sustainable," the Court said while quashing the criminal case against Kumar. .Advocate Mandeep Singla represented the accused.Additional Advocate General JS Dhaliwal represented the State of Punjab..[Read Judgment]