The legality of trademark use in business disputes can be enforced through civil agreements, impacting criminal proceedings.

1. Both these criminal original petitions have been filed for quashing the FIR in Cr.No.483 of 2014 registered on the file of the Inspector of Police, Sivakasi East Police Station, Virudhunagar District for the offences under S.103, S.104 of trademarks Act, 1999 and S.468, S.471 and S.420 of IPC. The de facto complainant is the second respondent herein. He is none other than the brother of the first petitioner herein. The case of the de facto complainant is that their family was carrying on business of manufacturing matches in the name and style of R.K. Match Company Private Limited and M/s.Thendral Match Works Industry. They were originally carrying on business as a partnership firm in the name of M/s. Soundarapandian Match Works which was later taken over by R.K. Match Company Private Limited. They were carrying on their business by using the trademark "Bulb". Bulb with violet colour background was registered as trademark No.1383622. Another trademark bulb with green colour was also registered as trademark No. 455169. When dispute arose between the two brothers, the matter was settled and two Memorandum of Understanding dated 30.03.2011 were also entered into between the parties. As per the understanding between the parties in respect of the trademark No.1383622 in Class 34 was to be used by the petitioners 1 to 3 while the trademark bulb with green colour was for the use of the second respondent.

2. The specific case of the second respondent herein is that the petitioners herein in Cri. OP(MD)No.3970 of 2015 who were parties to the memorandum of understanding had specifically agreed to not to infringe the trademark bulb with green colour. The second and third petitioners in Cri. OP(MD)No.3970 of 2015 are none other than the son and wife of the first petitioner herein Thiru. G.S. Rajasekaran. The second respondent would allege that contrary to the said agreement, the petitioners herein have trading by using the trademark bulb with green colour that was allotted to him. This led to the registration of Crime No.483 of 2014. To quash the same, this criminal original petitions have been fled.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterated the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds. His core argument is that the memorandum of understanding executed between the parties on 30.03.2011 has no legal consequence and it cannot be recognized in terms of the provisions of the Trademarks Act, 1999. He would further contend that the claim of colour combination will have to be specifically registered. In this case, no such registration has been obtained and therefore, the second respondent cannot claim any right against the petitioners against the use of the colour combination. The petitioners'' counsel would also argue that the investigation was being conducted by a police official in the rank of Inspector of Police and not by a rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. He would also point out that these are contractual matters and therefore, invocation of criminal law is clearly an abuse of legal process. The learned counsel for the petitioners wanted this Court to quash the impugned FIR.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant pointed out that the powers of this Court under S.482 of Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and that the petitioners have not made out a case for quashing the impugned FIR.

5. I carefully considered the rival contentions. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were originally carrying on their business as a joint family enterprises. The trademarks in question had been registered when they were jointly carrying on their business, trademark No. 455169 re