Fake brands, real consequences: Madhya Pradesh High Court flags criminality in misleading consumers

‘Fake pipes, deceived customers’

• The legal battle began when an FIR was lodged against the owners of Polyset Pipe Industries. 
• The investigation revealed that the petitioners were allegedly manufacturing PVC pipes and branding them as products of Jain Irrigation Systems Limited, a well-known industry leader.
• It was claimed that the petitioners were misleading consumers into believing that the products were genuine goods manufactured or authorised by the said company.
• After completion of the investigation, the investigating agency filed a chargesheet before the competent court, indicating that prima facie material existed on record to proceed against the petitioners for the offences alleged. 

‘Not copyright matter alone’

• The issue the present case involves is not limited to the question of copyright in a title but relates to alleged fraudulent conduct in commercial activities. 
• In the present case, the specific allegations include that the petitioners deliberately manufactured and circulated products by misrepresenting them to be associated with the brand identity of Jain Irrigation Systems Limited. 
• Such allegations would constitute offences involving deception and dishonest intention. 
• The investigation conducted by the police has culminated in the filing of a charge sheet indicating the existence of prima facie evidence. 

• Considering the allegations contained in the FIR and the evidence placed on record during the investigation, a prima facie case is disclosed against the petitioners. 
• The matter requires trial by the competent court and does not fall within the exceptional categories where the court should quash criminal proceedings. 
• The trial court should proceed with the matter and decide the case without being influenced by any observations made in this order. 

‘Civil dispute, commercial rivalry’

• Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Prakash Upadhaya argued that the dispute, if any, is related merely to alleged infringement of trademark or copyright and is essentially civil in nature.  
• Upadhaya submitted that the petitioners are running a duly registered industrial unit engaged in manufacturing plastic pipes and allied products.
• It was submitted that the petitioners are running the said unit after complying with the statutory registrations, including GST registration, MSME registration and consent from the pollution control board. 
• It was argued that the petitioners have been carrying out legitimate manufacturing activities and that the criminal proceedings have been initiated with mala fide intention arising out of commercial rivalry.

‘Serious allegations of cheating’

• Representing the state, deputy advocate general Vineeta Sharma submitted that the present case is not just a dispute relating to the use of alleged infringement of copyright, but involves serious allegations of cheating and deception practised upon consumers in the course of business.
• It was submitted that the petitioners were allegedly engaged in the practice of rebranding their products depending on the demand of customers. 
• Sharma also pointed out that the conduct of the petitioners prima facie discloses dishonest intention and inducement, attracting the ingredients of the offence of cheating as well as other offences under the IPC. 
• The allegations contained in the FIR clearly disclose the commission of cognisable offences which require thorough adjudication by the trial court. 
• It has been contended that the FIR contains specific allegations regarding the petitioners’ manufacturing and selling PVC pipes by misusing the brand identity associated with Jain Irrigation Systems Limited and deceiving consumers. 

• It is further submitted that the investigation conducted by the police has resulted in the collection of evidence supporting the allegations and that the chargesheet has already been filed before the competent court.