IPR violation: Supreme Court upholds Asian Paints right to appeal as 'victim'

Time of India

a day ago

The
Supreme Court
on Monday ruled a company can be called a victim under the Code of Criminal Procedure and file an appeal against an acquittal order in criminal cases including intellectual property rights (
IPR
) violations.
A bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra, therefore, allowed the appeal of
Asian Paints
and set aside the verdict of the Rajasthan High Court, which dismissed its appeal against the acquittal of one Ram Babu, who was allegedly found selling counterfeit paint products under the brand name.
"A neat question of law of significance is raised herein, namely, as to whether the appellant would fall under the definition of 'victim' in terms of Section 2(wa) read with the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC or whether Section 378 of the CrPC would prevail in the facts and circumstances of the present case," Justice Amanullah in the judgement said.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
How Retirees Can Potentially Minimize RMD Taxes
SmartAsset
Learn More
Undo
Clearing the legal position, the verdict pointed out corporate entities affected by intellectual property rights violations could pursue criminal proceedings as the victim.
Asian Paints, a leading manufacturer in the paint industry for over 73 years, engaged an IPR consultancy firm, M/s Solution, to track and take action against counterfeiters.
Live Events
During a market investigation in February 2016, the IPR consultancy firm found counterfeit products resembling Asian Paints' trademarks at the shop of "Ganpati Traders" at Tunga in Rajasthan.
It was owned by accused Ram Babu. Following a police inspection, 12 buckets of allegedly fake paints were seized.
However, after the trial and a subsequent appeal, the trial court acquitted Ram Babu.
Asian Paints challenged the acquittal, but the high court dismissed its appeal, saying only the original complainant and not the aggrieved company could file such an appeal.
The top court said the term "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC includes any person, natural or juristic, who suffers loss or injury due to the alleged offence.
Asian Paints, as the entity whose brand and reputation were harmed, squarely fits this definition, it said.
"In the present case, there cannot be any two opinions, that ultimately, it is the Appellant who has suffered due to the counterfeit/fake products being sold/attempted to be sold as having been manufactured by the Appellant. The Appellant would suffer financial loss and reputational injury if such products would be bought by the public under the mistaken belief that the same belonged to the Appellant's brand," it said.
The order continued, "We are constrained to observe that the finding of the High Court that the Appellant could not have maintained the appeal before it would amount to completely negating the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC..."
It is clear that the right to appeal accrues on the "victim" from the instance of a court acquitting the accused, the top court added.