Background of the Case
In a recent legal case involving allegations of trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court deliberated on significant issues surrounding the authenticity of documents and the application of new legal statutes. KG Marketing India, a prominent player in the electrical appliances sector, initiated a lawsuit against individuals accused of infringing their trademark ‘SURYA’. The company, boasting a substantial market presence across India over the past six years, underscored its claim with evidence such as newspaper advertisements and invoices.
Initial Injunction and Contest
Initially, an interim injunction was granted in favor of KG Marketing India, preventing the defendants from using the disputed ‘SURYA’ mark. Subsequently, the defendants contested this injunction, asserting ownership of the ‘SURYA GOLD’ mark and challenging the authenticity of the evidence provided by KG Marketing India, labeling it as fabricated.
Impact of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)
The case took a pivotal turn with the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), prompting the court to scrutinize the application of new legal provisions vis-à-vis ongoing proceedings. Justice Prathiba M Singh emphasized continuity under the former legal framework, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for matters initiated prior to the implementation of BNSS. This legal stance ensured procedural adherence and consistency in handling the case under familiar judicial guidelines.
Section 531 of BNSS and Continuity of Legal Actions
Central to the court’s deliberation was Section 531 of BNSS, stipulating the management of pending legal actions in alignment with pre-existing procedural norms until the effective date of BNSS. This provision guaranteed that ongoing appeals, applications, trials, inquiries, or investigations would maintain continuity under the established legal framework, unaffected by the introduction of new statutes.
Accusations of Fabrication and Court’s Response
The court’s decision highlighted the gravity of the accusations leveled against KG Marketing India, particularly concerning the alleged fabrication of documents and the submission of false affidavits during the legal proceedings. Such actions prompted the court to invoke Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, signaling the initiation of a complaint against the accused. The directive was clear: the Registrar General was mandated to act promptly, ensuring that a complaint was lodged with the Judicial Magistrate within a stipulated timeframe.
Injunction Against KG Marketing India
Furthermore, the court imposed an injunction restraining KG Marketing India from using the ‘SURYA GOLD’ mark or any associated trade dress, specifically pertaining to their tower fan product line. This injunction aimed to preserve the integrity of intellectual property rights and prevent any further potential infringement pending the resolution of the case.
Significance of the Case
This legal saga underscores the complexities inherent in trademark disputes and the meticulous scrutiny applied by the judiciary in evaluating evidence and procedural adherence. It serves as a poignant reminder of the legal responsibilities incumbent upon companies in safeguarding their intellectual property rights, while also highlighting the role of the judiciary in ensuring fair and equitable resolution of disputes.
Conclusion
In summary, the M/S KG Marketing India v. Ms. Rashi Santosh Soni and Anr. case sheds light on the application of legal statutes and procedural norms. It underscores the pivotal role of authenticity and integrity in evidentiary submissions within the field of intellectual property law.
Authored by: Alankrita Saxena, law student at Banasthali Vidyapith
