The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a first information report (FIR) and all related criminal proceedings against the proprietor of Bakshi Enterprises, holding that garments and clothing do not constitute “works” protected under the Copyright Act, 1957.
The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking the quashing of FIR No. 0453 dated 30th October 2021, registered at Police Station Ambala City under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act. The FIR had been lodged on the complaint of an authorised representative of Raymond Company, alleging that the petitioner was manufacturing and selling spurious garments falsely represented as original Raymond products, thereby causing financial loss to consumers and damaging the company’s goodwill and reputation.
During the investigation, garments allegedly bearing the Raymond brand were recovered from the petitioner’s premises. The petitioner was arrested, later released on bail, and a challan was filed. The trial court subsequently framed charges under Section 51 read with Section 63 of the Act, prompting the petitioner to move the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that copyright subsists only in works enumerated under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, namely literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, as well as cinematograph films and sound recordings. It was argued that cloth, fabric or garments do not fall within the definition of a copyrightable “work”, rendering the very basis of the FIR legally untenable. The petitioner further submitted that, at most, the allegations could attract remedies under trademark law, not criminal prosecution for copyright infringement.
The State opposed the petition, maintaining that spurious goods branded as Raymond had been recovered and that the trial had already commenced following the framing of charges.
After examining Section 13 of the Copyright Act in detail, the High Court held that garments or clothing do not fall within any of the protected classes of works under the Act. Relying on a consistent line of judicial precedents, including Deepak v. State of Haryana (2023) and Arun Kumar v. State of Punjab (2024), the Court reiterated that criminal prosecution under the Copyright Act for allegedly fake branded garments is not maintainable. It observed that allowing such proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the criminal process.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR, chargesheet, order framing charges and all consequential proceedings. It clarified that while the manufacture or sale of spurious branded garments may attract civil or criminal remedies under trademark law or principles of passing off, prosecution under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act is legally unsustainable.
