Ramkrishan Upadhyay
Chandigarh, November 12
A local court has issued a notice to the UT police seeking reply on a plea filed by a Chandigarh-based company, Diplast Plastics Limited, for issuing directions to the police to seize water tanks installed at the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
In the application moved through advocate Maninder Singh Saini under Section 102 of the CrPC read with Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act – 1999, the company alleged that duplicate water tanks had been installed at the Punjab and Haryana High Court affixing fake Diplast stickers.
The company said the executive engineer, Project Public Health Division, Chandigarh, was deputed to provide water supply tanks in the High Court. A total of 12 water tanks with 5,000 litre capacity each were sought to be purchased through a contractor.
The private contractor obtained the water tanks having the brand name of the company. However, the tanks were neither manufactured by the company nor these were obtained through it. The company said the ISI registration number affixed on the duplicate tanks was also fake as it had one digit less than the actual license number under the ISI.
The company said the brand name, Diplast, was fully licensed under the Bureau of Indian Standards, India. Moreover, the brand name was also registered under the Trade Marks Act – 1999 for water storage tanks having capacity up to 2,000 litres, while the tanks that were installed are having the quantity of 5,000 litres each.
The company said a written complaint was forwarded to the SHO, Sector 3 police station, in June 2022, seeking immediate action under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as well as the Copyright Act, 1957, requiring immediate confiscation of duplicate material and immediate registration of an FIR under the relevant provisions of the intellectual property laws. However, no action was taken. In view of the Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act – 1999, the police authority is competent to seize or confiscate the goods that are involved in committing the offence under the Trade Marks Act. Strangely, the police totally ignored that offence in the nature as specified cognisable in view of Section 115(3) of the Trade Marks Act – 1999.
The company demanded that the instruction may be issued to the police for registering an FIR and conducting investigation as per the law against respondents for offences committed under Sections 103, 104 and 114 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, relevant section of the Copyright Act and relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 420/506 of the IPC.
