Back
Quashes Copyright FIR for Sale of Counterfeit Apple Accessories
In a significant ruling, the has quashed a criminal FIR registered against a shopkeeper for selling counterfeit Apple accessories, holding that the allegations essentially concern rather than . Justice P. M. Raval observed that the FIR and seizure memo did not identify any specific allegedly copied from Apple, and that the prosecution under the Copyright Act was legally unsustainable.
The Case: Raj Cover House Raid
The dispute originated from an FIR dated , lodged at , Ahmedabad, against Jitendrabhai Mohanbhai Kiplani. The complainant, Vishalsinh Hirasinh Jadeja, was a manager at , a company authorized by to take legal action against counterfeit sellers. Acting on a tip-off, a police raid was conducted at Kiplani's shop, "Raj Cover House," in the Murtimant Complex. The seizure included AirPods, cables, power adapters, a smartwatch, and various Apple-branded stickers, valued at ₹15,11,193. The FIR invoked , alleging .
Arguments Over Copyright vs. Trademark
Kiplani's counsel, , argued that the seized items were commercial hardware—AirPods, adapters, cables—which do not constitute "" under . He contended that selling duplicate products bearing Apple's trademark falls under , and not under copyright law. He further argued that even under the Trade Marks Act, the raid was illegal because the police did not obtain the mandatory prior opinion of the and the search was conducted by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, in violation of .
The respondent, represented by Senior Counsel and the State’s APP , argued that the definition of "literary work" is inclusive and that product packaging, stickers, and instruction manuals constitute protected literary or artistic works. They submitted that photographs of the seized items demonstrated infringement and that even if copyright charges failed, the case could proceed under the Trade Marks Act.
The Breach
The court rejected the attempt to sustain the case under the Trade Marks Act. It noted that Section 115(4) contains two mandatory safeguards: the police must obtain the Registrar’s opinion before any search and seizure, and the search must be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The court found that neither condition was met. The FIR showed that the actual raid was executed by a Police Inspector and constables, far below the required rank, and no prior opinion from the Registrar was ever sought.
The court also observed that the complainant had deliberately framed the case as a to bypass these protections. “The complainant-company, fully aware that a raid under the , required prior opinion from the Registrar and execution by a DSP rank officer, deliberately dressed up a pure trademark dispute as a ‘’,” the judgment states. “Courts of law cannot act as silent spectators to such .”
Key Observations from the Bench
The court emphasized that hardware components, cables, and power adapters are , not . It quoted the precedent from , holding that spare parts do not fall under “artistic or literary work.” The court further noted that the FIR did not allege recovery of any user manuals or instruction leaflets, and the complainant could not invent a new factual basis during arguments.
“The dispute essentially pertains to the alleged on commercial accessories, which attracts the , and not the ,” Justice Raval wrote.
Decision and Implications
The court allowed the petition, quashing FIR No. 11191026220492 of 2022 and all consequential proceedings against Kiplani. The ruling reinforces that criminal charges under the Copyright Act cannot be used to pursue what is primarily a trademark violation, and that the under the Trade Marks Act must be strictly followed. The decision serves as a check against corporate entities using copyright law as a tool to bypass the protective mechanisms designed to prevent arbitrary police raids.
