{"id":354012,"date":"2025-07-21T12:00:23","date_gmt":"2025-07-21T06:30:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=354012"},"modified":"2025-07-22T18:08:18","modified_gmt":"2025-07-22T12:38:18","slug":"madras-hc-trademark-seizure-section-1154-of-trade-marks-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/21\/madras-hc-trademark-seizure-section-1154-of-trade-marks-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Madras HC sets aside seizure order for non-compliance with S. 115(4) of Trade Marks Act; Orders interim release of 1,350 rice bags"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Madras High Court:<\/span> In a criminal revision case filed under Section 438 read with Section 442<\/a> of the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (\u2018BNSS\u2019), 2023<\/a>, the accused had prayed for a direction to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Pudukottai, and to set aside the same. The accused had also sought an order directing the return of 1,350 kg of rice bags seized by the police. The matter was heard and disposed of by the Single Judge Bench of L. Victoria Gowri,J. Without delving into the merits of the alleged trade mark or copyright infringement, the Court found that the impugned order was liable to be set aside, on the grounds of procedural irregularity in seizure and the risk of undue prejudice to the accused.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Court directed that the 1,350 bags of rice be released to the accused in interim custody, subject to certain conditions prescribed to safeguard the ongoing investigation and trial.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

On 22-01-2025, the complainant, who was the Sales Manager of Manchukonda Agrotech Private Limited, lodged a complaint alleging that the accused, trading under the name M.M. Agro Mills, had been selling rice using the complainant\u2019s registered trade mark and copyrighted packaging without authorization. Acting upon the complaint, the police registered a First Information Report (\u2018FIR\u2019) for offences under Sections 51(b)(i)<\/a> and 63(a)<\/a> of the Copyright Act, 1957<\/a>, and seized 1,350 bags of rice.<\/p>\n

The seized goods were produced before the Judicial Magistrate Court. The accused, claiming to be a bona fide purchaser, filed a petition under Section 497<\/a> of the BNSS, 2023<\/a>, seeking the return of the seized rice. However, the Magistrate dismissed the petition, which led to the filing of the present criminal revision case.<\/p>\n

Issues<\/h3>\n