Trademark Piracy And Criminal Law
1. Introduction
Trademark piracy refers to the unauthorized use, imitation, or reproduction of a registered trademark to deceive or mislead consumers, often to gain unfair market advantage. It includes the use of identical or deceptively similar marks on goods or services without the permission of the registered trademark owner.
Trademark piracy is not just a civil wrong under trademark law—it also carries criminal liability in several jurisdictions, including India, where it can lead to imprisonment and fines under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Relevant Legal Provisions
A. Trade Marks Act, 1999
Key criminal provisions include:
Section 103 – Penalty for applying false trademarks, trade descriptions, etc.
Section 104 – Penalty for selling goods or services with false trademarks.
Section 105 – Enhanced penalty on second or subsequent conviction.
Section 115 – Police powers for search and seizure in trademark offenses.
Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment and/or fine not less than ₹50,000 (may extend to ₹2 lakh).
B. Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 420 – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
Section 482 – Using a false trademark.
Section 483 – Counterfeiting a trademark.
Section 486 – Selling goods with counterfeit trademark.
3. Trademark Piracy and Criminal Law: Case Law Analysis
Below are more than five important cases that show how courts in India have dealt with trademark piracy from a criminal law perspective.
✅ Case 1: Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) 5 SCC 73
Facts:
Both companies had similar names.
"Cadila Healthcare" and "Cadila Pharmaceuticals" were in the pharmaceutical industry.
There was a dispute over the use of deceptively similar marks.
Legal Issue:
Whether similar sounding names and packaging in medical products amount to infringement and confusion.
Held:
The Supreme Court emphasized that even slight confusion in pharmaceutical products could be dangerous and criminal prosecution may be initiated in cases of deliberate misrepresentation.
Significance:
Laid down parameters for judging deceptive similarity.
Though a civil case, it underlined criminal implications in life-threatening sectors like pharma.
✅ Case 2: State of Maharashtra v. Jagruti Industries (2004)
Facts:
The accused was using fake packaging and labels of a well-known detergent brand.
Legal Issue:
Criminal proceedings under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act.
Held:
The court upheld the criminal charges, stating that the accused was engaged in deliberate counterfeiting.
Significance:
Reiterated that trademark piracy can result in criminal liability, especially when consumer deception is intentional.
✅ Case 3: S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd. (2000) 5 SCC 573
Facts:
Dispute between "SM Dyechem" and "Cadbury" over similar-sounding trademarks.
Legal Issue:
Determination of deceptive similarity and whether it warrants criminal action.
Held:
The court clarified that intention to deceive is key in initiating criminal proceedings.
Significance:
Helped define thresholds of criminal culpability in trademark disputes.
✅ Case 4: Himalaya Drug Company v. Sumit (2013)
Facts:
The accused was found selling counterfeit products under the brand name "Himalaya".
Legal Issue:
Application of Section 420 IPC and Sections 103/104 of Trade Marks Act.
Held:
The court allowed prosecution under both the Trade Marks Act and IPC, noting that selling counterfeit drugs is a serious offense.
Significance:
Demonstrated that criminal and civil remedies can run concurrently in cases of trademark piracy.
✅ Case 5: Coca-Cola Company v. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd. (2009) (Delhi HC)
Facts:
Bisleri was selling "Maaza" in foreign markets even after selling the brand to Coca-Cola.
Legal Issue:
Unauthorized use of a trademark after transfer of ownership.
Held:
Though primarily a civil infringement case, the court observed that willful misrepresentation and piracy may attract criminal consequences.
Significance:
Showed that fraudulent commercial behavior in trademark use can trigger criminal liability.
✅ Case 6: Gillette India Ltd. v. A.K. Stationers (Delhi HC 2006)
Facts:
The accused was manufacturing and selling counterfeit “Gillette” razors.
Legal Issue:
Application of Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act.
Held:
The court issued injunctions and allowed criminal prosecution under the Trade Marks Act.
Significance:
Set precedent for granting criminal sanctions in counterfeit product cases, especially involving health and safety.
✅ Case 7: Revlon Inc. v. Regal Pharmaceuticals (Delhi HC 2001)
Facts:
A company was marketing beauty products under the name “Revilon”, similar to “Revlon”.
Legal Issue:
Whether the imitation was deceptive and criminal in nature.
Held:
The court noted intent to deceive consumers, allowing criminal action under both IPC and Trade Marks Act.
Significance:
Reinforced protection for well-known international brands under Indian criminal law.
✅ Case 8: Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia (2015) 10 SCC 161
Facts:
Although not a typical trademark case, the issue involved unauthorized commercial use of copyrighted and trademarked music.
Held:
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal prosecution and clarified that IP violations (trademark/copyright) can be treated as criminal fraud if dishonest intent is established.
Significance:
Showed how criminal law can be used to combat wider forms of IP piracy.
4. Key Takeaways from the Case Laws
| Aspect | Position under Law |
|---|---|
| Unauthorized Use | Criminal offense under Sections 103/104 of Trade Marks Act and 420 IPC |
| Counterfeit Goods | Covered under Sections 482–486 IPC and Trade Marks Act |
| Police Action | Allowed without warrant in serious piracy cases (Section 115) |
| Repeated Offenses | Enhanced punishment under Section 105 |
| Intent to Deceive | Crucial element for criminal liability |
| Civil vs. Criminal Remedy | Can proceed concurrently |
| Role of Mens Rea | Essential in most cases for IPC charges |
| Protection of Foreign Trademarks | Covered under Paris Convention and Indian Law |
5. Conclusion
Trademark piracy is more than a commercial wrong—it is a criminal offense with potential to mislead consumers, damage brand reputation, and undermine economic integrity. The Indian legal framework provides for strong criminal sanctions, especially when:
The act is deliberate and fraudulent,
Public health or safety is at risk,
There is repeat offending.
The courts have consistently supported criminal prosecution in serious cases of trademark piracy, balancing the rights of the brand owner with consumer protection.
RELATED Blog
0 comments