Why Selling Fake 'Raymond' Clothes Isn't Copyright Crime: Punjab and Haryana High Court's Landmark Clarification
In a significant legal clarification, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that selling counterfeit garments under the "Raymond" brand does not constitute copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957. The court quashed an FIR and criminal proceedings against a businessman accused of producing and selling spurious Raymond products, establishing that garments and fabrics fall outside the protective scope of copyright law.
Court's Rationale: Garments Not Protected as 'Work'
Justice Manisha Batra, while hearing the businessman's plea against trial court proceedings, emphasized that garments or cloth do not qualify as "work" under Section 13 of the Copyright Act. The court stated that copyright protection applies only to specific enumerated classes of works, which exclude everyday clothing items.
"A plain reading of Section 13 of the Copyright Act makes it abundantly clear that copyright subsists only in respect of the specific classes of works enumerated therein. Garments or cloth, as such, do not fall within the ambit of the said provision," the January 23 order declared.
Legal Proceedings and Arguments
The case originated when an authorized representative of Raymond Company filed a complaint in 2021 against Bakshi Enterprises, owned by Davinder Pal Bakshi. The complaint alleged manufacturing and selling of counterfeit Raymond garments in Ambala city. Following a police raid that recovered allegedly fake cloth, an FIR was registered under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act.
Advocate Munish Behl, representing the petitioner, argued that the fundamental requirement for invoking copyright provisions is the existence of a protected "work". He contended that cloth, fabric, or garments find no mention in Section 13 and cannot be considered protected works under the Act.
Deputy Attorney General Himani Arora, appearing for the state, maintained that spurious goods bearing Raymond branding were recovered during investigation, and the trial court had found prima facie evidence to frame charges.
Broader Implications of the Ruling
The court's decision carries important implications for intellectual property enforcement in India's textile and garment industry:
- Clarification of Copyright Scope: The judgment clearly distinguishes between copyright protection (for artistic/literary works) and trademark protection (for brand names/logos)
- Prevention of Legal Misuse: Justice Batra noted that continuing criminal proceedings based on copyright allegations would constitute "an abuse of the process of law"
- Judicial Consistency: The court referenced previous rulings by coordinate benches establishing that using brand names on garments doesn't automatically trigger copyright penalties
The court emphasized that while inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly, when allegations don't constitute an offence and proceedings suffer from fundamental legal infirmities, permitting prosecution would fail judicial duty. Allowing such cases to continue would result in unnecessary harassment and misuse of the criminal justice system.
Industry Context and Legal Distinctions
This ruling highlights the critical distinction between copyright and trademark protections in Indian law. While Raymond Company might have grounds for trademark infringement claims regarding unauthorized use of their brand name, the court clarified that garments themselves don't qualify for copyright protection as creative works.
The decision follows similar judicial reasoning seen in other intellectual property cases, such as the Delhi High Court's ruling denying monopoly protection for the "A TO Z" mark, reinforcing that certain common elements cannot be exclusively claimed under intellectual property laws.
This landmark clarification from the Punjab and Haryana High Court provides important guidance for businesses, legal practitioners, and enforcement agencies regarding the appropriate legal avenues for addressing counterfeit garment sales while preventing misuse of copyright provisions for matters better addressed under trademark law.
