The Trademark Law in India prohibits misuse of trademarks that can hurt consumers and businesses. The Act replaced the old Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. It deals with people who sell or hold fake goods or services with misleading trademarks. Section 104 of Trademark Act helps in keeping brands safe and builds trust with consumers. Section 104 of Trademark Act is in Chapter XII, which covers crimes, penalties, and procedures for trademark violations. It focuses on activities like selling or offering counterfeit products. It explains the punishments, like imprisonment or fines, for breaking trademark rules. This article breaks down Section 104, including its parts, defenses, penalties, and real-world examples from case laws.
Step into the future of legal expertise! Join our Advanced Certification Program in Intellectual Property Law, created by The Legal School in collaboration with Khaitan & Co. Designed for fresh law graduates and professionals, this unique course boosts your legal career. Don’t miss this opportunity—enquire today to secure your spot!
Overview of Section 104 of Trademark Act
Section 104 of Trademark Act, 1999, sets penalties for selling goods or services with fake trademarks or misleading descriptions. Anyone who sells, rents, offers for sale or holds goods or services with a false trademark or description faces punishment. This also applies if goods lack required labels, like the country of origin or manufacturer’s details, as per Section 139.
The punishment is imprisonment for at least six months, up to three years, and a fine from ₹50,000 to ₹2,00,000. However, the person can avoid punishment by proving one of three things:
(a) They took all reasonable steps to avoid breaking the law and didn’t know the trademark or description was fake.
(b) They shared all information about where they got the goods or services when asked by authorities.
(c) They acted innocently and didn’t mean to break the law.
The court can reduce the punishment below the minimum for special reasons, but it must explain why in the judgment.
In simple words, Section 104 makes it an offense to deal in goods or services with fake trademarks or misleading details. A “false trademark” is an unauthorized mark that confuses consumers like a counterfeit logo. A “false trade description” means wrong information about a product’s origin, quality or features, as defined in Section 2(1)(i). This section also connects to Section 139 which requires certain goods to show manufacturing details. Section 104 is a strong tool to stop counterfeiting. Once the prosecution proves a fake trademark, the accused must prove their innocence.
Importance and Implications of Section 104 of Trademark Act
Section 104 is crucial for protecting consumers from harmful fake products. It also builds confidence for brand owners, encouraging them to invest in quality and innovation. By punishing fake goods, it ensures fair competition in the market. For law enforcement, it provides a strong tool to fight counterfeiting, though cases like Manikam show the need for proper investigations. Overall, Section 104 strengthens India’s intellectual property laws and supports global efforts against counterfeiting.
Also, Get to Know About Infringement of Geographical Indication.
Essential Elements of the Offence under Section 104 of Trademark Act
To prove an offense under Section 104, certain facts must be shown. First, the person must be selling, renting, offering for sale, or holding goods or services with a false trademark or description. This includes many activities, like retail sales or wholesale distribution. Second, the law applies to services too, such as misleading branding in hotels or consulting businesses. Third, it covers cases where goods don’t have required labels about their origin or manufacturer, as per Section 139, which can mislead consumers.
The law doesn’t always require proof of intent to convict someone. However, it allows defenses for those who didn’t know or acted innocently. For lawyers, understanding these elements is key when working on investigations or trials. These elements form the basis for charges under Section 104.
Defences Available under Section 104 of Trademark Act
Section 104 offers three defenses to avoid punishment. The accused must prove these defenses.
Firstly, under clause (a), they can show they took all reasonable steps to avoid breaking the law and had no reason to think the trademark or description was fake. For example, a store owner who checks suppliers carefully might use this defense if they were tricked.
Secondly, under clause (b), they can avoid punishment by giving full details about where they got the goods or services when authorities ask. This encourages cooperation.
Thirdly, under clause (c), they can prove they acted innocently, like holding fake goods without knowing they were fake.
These defenses balance strict rules with fairness. They protect honest traders from punishment. Lawyers often use these defenses in court to argue for acquittal or lighter penalties.
Penalties Given under Section 104 of Trademark Act
Section 104 has tough penalties to stop trademark violations. If convicted, a person faces at least six months in imprisonment, which can go up to three years. They also face a fine from ₹50,000 to ₹2,00,000. These penalties show how serious trademark crimes are since they can harm the economy and consumers. However, the court can give a lighter sentence for special reasons, like if it is a first-time offense or caused little harm. The court must explain these reasons in its judgment. For lawyers, this flexibility is important during sentencing discussions.
Read about the relevance of Trademark in Cyber Law.
Comparison with Related Sections in the Trademark Act, 1999
Section 104 works with other parts of Chapter XII. The following table shows how Section 104 fits into the broader law. It focuses on selling or holding fake goods, while other sections cover making fakes or misusing records.
Section | Description | Penalty | Difference from Section 104 |
Section 103 | Penalty for applying false trademarks or descriptions | Imprisonment: 6 months to 3 years; Fine: ₹50,000 to ₹2,00,000 | Focuses on making or applying fake marks, not selling or holding |
Section 105 | Enhanced penalty for second or later convictions under 103/104 | Imprisonment: 1 to 3 years; Fine: ₹1,00,000 to ₹2,00,000 | Applies to repeat offenders with higher minimum penalties |
Section 107 | Penalty for falsely claiming a mark is registered | Imprisonment up to 3 years and/or fine | Targets misrepresentation of registration status |
Section 109 | Penalty for falsifying register entries | Imprisonment up to 2 years and/or fine | Deals with tampering with trademark records, not selling |
Case Laws Interpreting Section 104 of Trademark Act
The courts have used Section 104 in many cases, often alongside laws from the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for counterfeiting. In P. Manikam vs. State (2017) which was decided by the Madras High Court, the accused sold fake “Syed Beedi” cigarettes with labels similar to a registered brand. They faced charges under Sections 103 and 104. The court dismissed the case because the prosecution did not follow proper procedures, like getting the opinion of the Registrar of trademark under Section 115(4). This shows the importance of following legal steps.
In Geoffrey Manners and Company Ltd. vs. The State of Bombay (1951), decided under the older law but relevant today, the Supreme Court upheld a conviction. The company labeled a cream as made in London, but it was made in India, which was a false trade description. The court used circumstantial evidence to prove the violation, showing how misleading labels can lead to penalties.
In Laxmikant V. Patel vs. Chetanbhat Shah & Anr (2002), the Supreme Court dealt with a case where a business used a similar name for a color lab, confusing customers. While this was mainly a civil case, it mentioned criminal penalties under Section 104 for deceptive practices. The court granted an injunction, showing how civil and criminal remedies can overlap.
Summary
Section 104 of Trademark Act, 1999 stops the sale of fake goods and services. It clearly defines crimes, defenses and penalties, creating a fair approach to trademark enforcement. Lawyers must understand case laws to handle disputes effectively. As counterfeiting grows with online shopping, the importance of Section 104 will increase. Staying vigilant in applying this law is key to protecting brands and consumers.
Related Posts:
Section 104 of Trademark Act: FAQs
Q1. What are the 4 types of trademarks?
The four types of trademarks are product marks (for goods), service marks (for services), collective marks (for group/association use), and certification marks (indicating quality or origin).
Q2. What is Section 114 of the Trademark Act?
Section 114 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, provides immunity to trademark officials for actions done in good faith under the Act.
Q3. What are the absolute grounds for refusal of registration?
Absolute grounds for refusal include trademarks that lack distinctiveness, are descriptive, deceive the public, or are against public morality or law.
Q4. What are the reasons for refusing documents for registration?
Documents may be refused for registration due to incomplete information, incorrect fees, non-compliance with format, or failure to meet legal requirements under the Trade Marks Act.
