Back
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved On: 28th February, 2024 Pronounced On: 28th May, 2024 + CRL.M.C. 1991/2012 & CRL.M.A. 1470/2013 (Clarification), 14308/2015 (Final Hearing), 941/2022 (Early Hearing)
COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Arvind Nigam, Mr. Ramesh Gupta and Mr. Arvind Varma, Senior Advocates with Mr. Saif Khan, Mr. Achutan Sreekumar, Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr. Pratham Vir Agarwal and Ms. Smridhi Sharma Advocates.
versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State.
Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Harshita Sukhija, Ms. Palak Jain and Mr. Nishak Tripathi, Advocates for R-2.
+ CRL.M.C. 2739/2012 G L VERMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Kunal Khanna, Mr. Swastik Bisarya, Ms. Vridhi Pasricha, Mr.
Pravav Prasoon and Mr. Prakash Walia, Advocates.
versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State.
Mr. Sanjay Jain and Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocates with Mr. Akash Nagar, Mr. Mayur Gala, Ms. Manviya Arun, Ms. Anjalika Arora and Mr.
Sumit Mishra, Advocates for R-2.
+ CRL.M.C. 2639/2012 & CRL.M.A. 1469/2013 (Clarification)
K V VAIDYANATHAN & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Arvind Nigam, Mr. Ramesh Gupta and Mr. Arvind Varma, Senior Advocates with Mr. Saif Khan, Mr. Achutan Sreekumar, Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr. Pratham Vir Agarwal and Ms. Smridhi Sharma Advocates.
versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State.
Mr. Sanjay Jain and Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocates with Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Mr. Akash Nagar, Mr. Mayur Gala, Ms. Arushi Singh, Ms. Manviya Arun, Ms. Anjalika Arora and Mr. Sumit Mishra, Advocates for R-2.
+ CRL.M.C. 2823/2012 & CRL.M.A. 20243/2012 (Clarification)
MANUEL ARRESE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Arvind Nigam, Mr. Ramesh Gupta and Mr. Arvind Varma, Senior Advocates with Mr. Saif Khan, Mr. Achutan Sreekumar, Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr. Pratham Vir Agarwal and Ms. Smridhi Sharma Advocates.
versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State.
Mr. Sanjay Jain and Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocates with Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Mr. Akash Nagar, Mr. Mayur Gala, Ms. Arushi Singh, Ms. Manviya Arun, Ms. Anjalika Arora and Mr. Sumit Mishra, Advocates for R-2.
+ CRL.M.C. 2824/2012 & CRL.M.A. 1915/2013 (Clarification)
MITCHELL ABRAHAMSEN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Arvind Nigam, Mr. Ramesh Gupta and Mr. Arvind Varma, Senior Advocates with Mr. Saif Khan, Mr. Achutan Sreekumar, Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr. Pratham Vir Agarwal and Ms. Smridhi Sharma Advocates.
versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State.
Mr. Sanjay Jain and Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocates with Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Mr. Akash Nagar, Mr. Mayur Gala, Ms. Arushi Singh, Ms. Manviya Arun, Ms. Anjalika Arora and Mr. Sumit Mishra, Advocates for R-2.
+ CRL.M.C. 2825/2012 & & CRL.M.A. 1916/2013 (Clarification)
STEPHEN C PATRICK ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Arvind Nigam, Mr. Ramesh Gupta and Mr. Arvind Varma, Senior Advocates with Mr. Saif Khan, Mr. Achutan Sreekumar, Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr. Pratham Vir Agarwal and Ms. Smridhi Sharma Advocates.
versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State.
Mr. Sanjay Jain and Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocates with Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Mr. Akash Nagar, Mr. Mayur Gala, Ms. Arushi Singh, Ms. Manviya Arun, Ms. Anjalika Arora and Mr. Sumit Mishra, Advocates for R-2.
+ CRL.M.C. 2826/2012 & CRL.M.A. 1909/2013 (Clarification)
MICHAEL J TANGNEY ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Arvind Nigam, Mr. Ramesh Gupta and Mr. Arvind Varma, Senior Advocates with Mr. Saif Khan, Mr. Achutan Sreekumar, Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr. Pratham Vir Agarwal and Ms. Smridhi Sharma Advocates.
versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State.
Mr. Sanjay Jain and Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocates with Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Mr. Akash Nagar, Mr. Mayur Gala, Ms. Arushi Singh, Ms. Manviya Arun, Ms. Anjalika Arora and Mr. Sumit Mishra, Advocates for R-2.
+ CRL.M.C. 2827/2012 & CRL.M.A. 1907/2023 (Clarification)
IAN COOK ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Arvind Nigam, Mr. Ramesh Gupta and Mr. Arvind Varma, Senior Advocates with Mr. Saif Khan, Mr. Achutan Sreekumar, Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr. Pratham Vir Agarwal and Ms. Smridhi Sharma Advocates.
versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State.
Mr. Sanjay Jain and Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocates with Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Mr. Akash Nagar, Mr. Mayur Gala, Ms. Arushi Singh, Ms.
Manviya Arun, Ms. Anjalika Arora and Mr. Sumit Mishra, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON‘BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
JUDGMENT
AMIT SHARMA, J.
1. The present petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‗CrPC‘) seek setting aside of order dated 02.04.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts in CC No. 7/2/09 titled ‗Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. v. KV Vaidyanathan & Ors.‘, whereby the petitioners have been summoned to face trial in the said complaint case under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‗IPC‘). The petitioners also seek quashing of the impugned complaint instituted on behalf of respondent no. 2/Anchor Health and Beauty Case Pvt.
Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‗Anchor‘).
2. The details of the petitioners in the present batch of petitions are as under:
| Case Number | Parties | Summoned under: | Hereinafter referred to as: |
| CRL.MC. 1991/2012 | Petitioner no. 1: Colgate – Palmolive Company Petitioner no. 2: Colgate – Palmolive (India) Limited | Sections 465/469/471/34 of the IPC | ‗Colgate‘ |
| CRL.MC. 2739/2012 | Petitioner: GL Verma | Sections 197/465/466 of the IPC | ‗Deputy Registrar‘ |
| CRL.MC. 2639/2012 | Petitioner no. 1: KV Vaidyanathan Petitioner no. 2: RA Shah Petitioner no. 3: Sanjiv Kumar Srivastava | Sections 465/469/471/34 of the IPC | ‗Directors‘ |
| CRL.MC. 2827/2012 | Petitioner: Ian Cook | Sections 465/469/471/34 of the IPC | ‗Directors‘ |
| CRL.MC. 2823/2012 | Petitioner: Manual Arrese | ||
| CRL.MC. 2826/2012 | Petitioner: Michael J. Tangney | ||
| CRL.MC. 2824/2012 | Petitioner: Mitchell Abrahamsen | ||
| CRL.MC. 2825/2012 | Petitioner: Stephen C. Patrick |
3. Vide the impugned order, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, in a complaint filed by Anchor, has summoned the petitioners under various provisions of the IPC, as stated hereinabove, by prima facie coming to a finding that the two documents, i.e., the copy of certificate of registration of Trade Mark bearing number 1223059 and the certified copy of the said certificate for use in legal proceedings were forged.
4. The case of Anchor, in the complaint filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is as under:
i. C.S. (OS) 1709/2005 was instituted by Colgate before this Court alleging infringement of copyright, Trade Mark, passing off etc. against Anchor. It was alleged in the said plaint, that Colgate, through its Directors had produced a copy of certificate of registration of Trade Mark Number 1223059 and during the proceedings in the said plaint, they further produced a document purported to be a certified copy of the said certificate for ‗use in legal proceedings‘. It was the case of Anchor that both the said documents were forged and were never issued by the Trade Mark Registry. The primary contention raised in the said suit was that red and white colored Trade Mark applied to a carton for “toothpaste, toothpowder, non-medicate mouthwash and dentifrices” and identified by the title “Colgate Strong Teeth” is Colgate‘s registered Trade Mark and the subject matter of registration number 1223059 in class 3, dated 14.08.2003 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It was averred that the use of a toothpaste pack in identical red and white colors by Anchor (defendant in the said suit) amounts to an infringement of the said registration.
ii. It was alleged that Colgate had also instituted Suit No. 4118/96 before the Hon‘ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, wherein they were denied an interim injunction to restrain Anchor from using the combination of red and white colour on the toothpaste carton. An appeal preferred by Colgate against the said order was also dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the Hon‘ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
iii. It was further alleged that Colgate instituted a number of suits before this Court alleging infringement and/or passing off against Anchor for use of the combination of red and white color in respect of Anchor Dental Care products. Except for in IA No. 3502/2003 filed in Suit No. 691/03, Colgate was not granted an interim injunction in any pr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
