Court Rules That Mere Possession of Spurious ISI Mark Without Proof of Use Does Not Attract Criminal Liability Under Bureau of Indian Standards Act
In a significant judgment delivered on October 14, 2026, the Kerala High Court, presided by Justice A. Badharudeen, dismissed the appeal filed by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) against the acquittal of M/s. Mars Veneers and Boards and its partners in a criminal case concerning the alleged possession and use of a fake ISI mark. The case, which had its origins in a complaint filed by the BIS under Sections 11, 12, and 33 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986, raised critical questions about the interpretation of "use" versus "possession" of standard marks in criminal proceedings.
The facts of the case revealed that during an inspection of the accused firm's factory by BIS officials, a roller bearing a spurious ISI mark and a fake ISI mark painted on the factory wall were found. However, no finished goods bearing the fake ISI mark were seized or produced during the trial. The prosecution contended that mere possession of the spurious ISI mark was sufficient to establish the offence under the BIS Act.
The trial magistrate had acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredient of "use" of the spurious ISI mark on any article or process, as required under Sections 11 and 12 read with Section 33 of the BIS Act. The prosecution's failure to produce any finished product with the fake ISI mark and insufficient proof that the roller was in working condition to affix the mark led to the acquittal.
On appeal, the Kerala High Court thoroughly examined the statutory provisions. The court observed that the legislature deliberately used the word "use" in Sections 11 and 12 rather than "possess," indicating a clear legislative intent to penalize only actual use of the Standard Mark or any colourable imitation thereof. Mere possession of an object capable of affixing such a mark, without evidence of its actual use in manufacturing or marking goods, does not constitute an offence under the BIS Act.
The court further noted that the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had used the spurious ISI mark on any article or process. The absence of finished goods with the fake ISI mark and the lack of cogent evidence regarding the roller's use reinforced the trial court's conclusion.
Consequently, the Kerala High Court upheld the acquittal, dismissing the appeal filed by the BIS and affirming that penal consequences under the BIS Act can only be imposed upon proof of "use" and not mere possession of a spurious or fake ISI mark.
This judgment clarifies the scope of criminal liability under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 and underscores the necessity of proving actual "use" of the standard mark in offences pertaining to improper use or unauthorized use of the ISI mark.
Bottom Line:
Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 - For offences under Sections 11 and 12 read with Section 33, mere possession of a spurious or fake ISI mark or an object capable of affixing such mark is not sufficient - Prosecution must prove actual use of the Standard Mark or prohibited mark in relation to any article, process, trade mark, design or name - In absence of any seized finished goods bearing fake ISI mark, acquittal was justified.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 11, 12, 33 of Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986
Bureau of Indian Standards v. M/s. Mars Veneers and Boards, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2999889
