Court holds that commercial hardware and stickers do not qualify as “artistic or literary works” under Copyright Act; raid conducted without mandatory Registrar’s opinion and by unauthorized officers under Trade Marks Act
In a significant judgment delivered on September 7, 2026, the Gujarat High Court quashed the FIR registered against Mr. Jitendrabhai Mohanbhai Kriplani, who was accused of selling counterfeit Apple products, including AirPods, cables, and adapters, at his shop “Raj Cover House” in Ahmedabad. The petition was dismissed on the grounds that the allegations failed to satisfy the statutory ingredients of the Copyright Act, 1957, and the search and seizure operation violated mandatory procedural safeguards under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The case originated from a complaint filed by Mr. Vishalsinh Hirasinh Jadeja, manager at Griffin Intellectual Property Service Pvt. Ltd., authorized by Apple Inc. to initiate legal action against copyright and trademark infringements. Based on private intelligence, multiple shops in Kalupur area were alleged to be selling counterfeit Apple goods. A raid was conducted on October 19, 2022, at “Raj Cover House” by the local police along with company representatives and panchas, recovering various Apple-branded hardware items and stickers valued at approximately Rs. 15.11 lakhs.
Mr. Kriplani challenged the FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arguing that the seized products—hardware components like AirPods, cables, power adapters, and stickers—do not fall within the ambit of “literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works” as defined under Section 13 read with Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act. He contended that commercial hardware disputes should be governed by the Trade Marks Act and not the Copyright Act. Furthermore, he highlighted violations of Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, which mandates prior opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks and that only officers not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) can conduct search and seizure. The raid was conducted by police officers below DSP rank and without Registrar’s prior opinion, rendering it illegal.
The complainant countered by asserting that the packaging, promotional materials, instruction manuals, and stickers recovered are original literary works protected under copyright law and that the petitioner was unauthorized to reproduce these. They contended that the seizure established prima facie infringement attracting penal provisions of the Copyright Act.
After detailed examination of the FIR, seizure panchnama, and submissions from both sides, the Court held that:
- The hardware components and commercial products seized do not constitute “artistic or literary works” protected under the Copyright Act, 1957. Mere sale of duplicate hardware bearing a registered trademark is a trademark infringement and falls under the Trade Marks Act, not the Copyright Act. Reliance was placed on precedents including Binita Rahul Shah vs. State of Gujarat and Mayur Kanaiyalal Shah vs. State of Gujarat, which similarly quashed FIRs alleging copyright violations in commercial spare parts.
- The FIR failed to explicitly plead or establish infringement of any original literary or artistic work, such as instruction manuals or user guides, which are necessary for invoking Section 63 of the Copyright Act.
- The seizure memo and investigation papers did not disclose recovery of any instruction manuals or original literary material. The complainant’s reliance on photographs not part of investigation records was rejected.
- The raid and seizure violated mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, which requires prior opinion from the Registrar of Trade Marks and search to be conducted by police officers not below the rank of DSP. The raid was conducted by a Police Inspector and Head Constables, thus illegal and void ab initio.
- The complainant’s attempt to reframe a trademark violation as a copyright infringement to bypass these safeguards was a colorable exercise of power and abuse of process.
In view of these findings, the Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against Mr. Kriplani. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory mandates and cautioned against misuse of copyright law to circumvent the protections and procedural requirements of the Trade Marks Act.
This ruling clarifies that counterfeit commercial goods bearing trademarks cannot be prosecuted under the Copyright Act unless a protected literary or artistic work is explicitly infringed. It also underscores the necessity of compliance with procedural safeguards in intellectual property enforcement to prevent misuse of legal processes.
Bottom Line:
Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act - Selling duplicate commercial goods bearing registered trademarks does not attract Section 63 of the Copyright Act unless FIR explicitly establishes infringement of a protected "work" under Section 2 read with Section 13 of the Act. FIR quashed due to failure to satisfy statutory ingredients of Copyright Act and procedural violations under Trade Marks Act.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 13, 51, 63, 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957; Sections 103, 104, 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999; Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Jitendrabhai Mohanbhai Kriplani v. State of Gujarat, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2973758
