Copyright Act | Mobile Accessories Not 'Artistic Work'; TM Act Search Safeguards (Registrar Opinion, DSP Officer) Mandatory : Gujarat HC

The Gujarat High Court quashed an FIR registered under Sections 51, 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957 against a shopkeeper selling counterfeit Apple accessories, holding that commercial hardware such as AirPods, cables, power adapters and smartwatches do not constitute "literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works" protected by copyright. The Court further ruled that even if the dispute were treated as trademark infringement, the search and seizure were executed in flagrant breach of the mandatory safeguards under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 - specifically, the absence of prior Registrar's opinion and execution by officers below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Jitendrabhai Mohanbhai Kriplani, proprietor of "Raj Cover House" located on the second floor of Murtimant Complex, Relief Road, Kalupur, Ahmedabad, was implicated in an FIR registered on 19.10.2022 at Kalupur Police Station. The complainant, Vishalsinh Hirasinh Jadeja, Manager at Griffin Intellectual Property Service Pvt. Ltd., alleged that the petitioner was selling counterfeit Apple Inc. products including iPhone back covers, data cables, toughened glass, desktop chargers and other mobile accessories bearing the Apple trademark. Griffin Intellectual Property Service Pvt. Ltd. claimed authorization via a letter from Apple Inc. Corporation to take legal action against copyright infringers and counterfeit sellers.

Key Facts

• 19.10.2022: FIR No. C.R. 11191026220492 registered at Kalupur Police Station under Sections 51, 63, 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957
• Complainant: Vishalsinh Hirasinh Jadeja, Manager, Griffin Intellectual Property Service Pvt. Ltd., authorized by Apple Inc. Corporation via authorization letter
• Petitioner: Jitendrabhai Mohanbhai Kriplani, aged 39, residing at Flat No. 1, Samiksha Apartment, near Punjabi Hall, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad
• Raid conducted: Police team led by Police Inspector, Kalupur Chowki Surveillance Squad, with Head Constables and Constables (Buckle Nos. 9087, 6515, 12666, 13270, 6555) and company representatives
• Panchas: Two independent panchas summoned from vicinity of police station
• Items seized (14 categories): Total value Rs. 15,11,193/-
  1. iPhone AirPods-3: 52 units @ Rs. 4,000 = Rs. 2,08,000
  2. iPhone AirPods: 178 units @ Rs. 2,000 = Rs. 3,56,000
  3. iPhone AirPods Pro: 179 units @ Rs. 3,000 = Rs. 5,37,000
  4. iPhone C-USB Cable: 80 units @ Rs. 1,000 = Rs. 80,000
  5. iPhone C+C 35W Power Adapter: 116 units @ Rs. 1,500 = Rs. 1,74,000
  6. iPhone C Power Adapter: 110 units @ Rs. 1,000 = Rs. 1,10,000
  7. iPhone Dual C Port Power Adapter: 12 units @ Rs. 1,000 = Rs. 12,000
  8. iPhone Smart Watch: 8 units @ Rs. 4,000 = Rs. 32,000
  9. iPhone AirPods Pro Side Cover Sticker: 250 units @ Rs. 2 = Rs. 500
  10. iPhone Apple Mono Sticker: 650 units @ Rs. 1 = Rs. 650
  11. iPhone Apple Side Sticker with Bar code: 500 units @ Rs. 1 = Rs. 500
  12. iPhone Apple M.R.P. Sticker: 380 units @ Rs. 1 = Rs. 380
  13. iPhone Apple M.R.P. Sticker with Bar code: 63 units @ Rs. 1 = Rs. 63
  14. iPhone Apple Side Seal Sticker: 100 units @ Rs. 1 = Rs. 100
• No instruction manuals or user leaflets recovered or seized from petitioner's shop
• Special Power of Attorney: Executed on 15.10.2022 for 2 years authorizing Griffin IP Services and its officers to lodge complaints

Procedural History

• 19.10.2022: FIR registered at Kalupur Police Station, Ahmedabad City
• 2022: Petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 21846 of 2022 under Section 482 CrPC before Gujarat High Court seeking quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings
• 07.09.2026: Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. M. Raval allowing the petition

The Parties' Positions

Petitioner's contention: The seized products - hardware accessories and functional stickers - do not fall within "artistic work" under Section 2(c) or "literary work" under Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act. The dispute is essentially trademark counterfeiting, not copyright infringement. Section 15 of the Copyright Act extinguishes copyright when design applied industrially more than 50 times. The FIR misapplies copyright law to bypass Trade Marks Act safeguards.

Respondent's contention: Literary work definition is inclusive; packaging, promotional material, product literature, stickers, MRP labels with barcodes, and instruction manuals constitute original literary/artistic works under Sections 2(c), 2(o), 2(s). Unauthorized reproduction amounts to infringement under Section 51, attracting penal provisions under Section 63. Photographs taken prior to raid confirm counterfeit products bearing Apple trademarks.

Relief Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. C.R. 11191026220492 dated 19.10.2022 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

The Legal Issue

The central questions were: (1) Whether commercial hardware accessories (AirPods, cables, power adapters, smartwatches) and functional stickers (MRP tags, barcode labels, seal stickers) constitute "literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works" under Sections 2(c), 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957 such that their counterfeit sale attracts Section 63; (2) Whether, if the dispute is fundamentally one of trademark falsification, the investigation can proceed under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 despite non-compliance with the mandatory statutory safeguards under Section 115(4) - namely, prior opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks and search/seizure by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

Mr. Premal S. Rachh argued that the seized items are commercial industrial products, not copyrightable works. Hardware components and functional stickers containing purely factual data (MRP, barcodes, model numbers) lack originality required for literary/artistic works under Section 13. The dispute is trademark counterfeiting governed by Sections 103, 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Invoking Copyright Act provisions constitutes abuse of process to circumvent Trade Marks Act safeguards. Reliance placed on Mihir Surendrabhai Shah v. State of Gujarat (2023 (3) GLH 575), Binita Rahul Shah v. State of Gujarat (2009), Mayur Kanaiyalal Shah v. State of Gujarat (2023), Nainesh Chinubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2013), Dagubhai Musabhai Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2023), Reckeweg and Co. Gmbh v. Adven Biotech Pvt. Ltd. (MANU/DE/0961/2008), Sandip Dube v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application No. 1541/2025), Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab (CRM-M-12823-2021), and Maya Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. Pigeon Appliances Pvt. Ltd. (2004 (4) CTC 334).

For the Respondent

Mr. Mihir Joshi (Senior Counsel) with Mr. Hasit R. Ved for Respondent No. 2, and Mr. Rohan Shah (APP) for the State, contended that the complainant was duly authorized via Special Power of Attorney dated 15.10.2022. Literary work under Section 2(o) is inclusive; packaging, labels, promotional material, instruction manuals, and product literature constitute original literary works. Section 13 requires only that the work originate from the author through labour and skill, not artistic merit. Counterfeit packaging, stickers, and manuals infringe copyright under Section 51, attracting Section 63. Reliance placed on Agarwala Publishing House v. Board of High School Education (1966 SCC OnLine All 124), Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Amazestore (MANU/DE/1390/2019), and Microsoft Corporation v. Deepak Raval (2006 SCC OnLine Del 1670).

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the statutory scheme of the Copyright Act, 1957. Under Section 13 read with Section 2(c), copyright subsists only in original literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works, sound recordings, and cinematograph films. Hardware components - cables, power adapters, electronic devices - are commercial industrial products. Misusing a brand name or producing duplicate hardware bearing a trademark constitutes falsification of trade marks under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, not an offence under the Copyright Act. As held in Binita Rahul Shah (supra), spare parts do not fall under "artistic or literary work." Attempting to prosecute duplicate commercial spare parts under Section 63 is an abuse of process.

Regarding stickers, seals, and packaging labels (Items 9 - 14), the Court found the FIR merely describes seized items as "goods infringing upon the copyright of Apple Inc. Corporation and bearing the Apple trademark." It does not state that Apple holds copyright in any specific literary work (instruction sheets, user manuals) or artistic work (graphical layout, original artwork, visual packaging design). Copyright is purely statutory; an FIR cannot invoke Section 63 without explicitly pleading how seized material satisfies the definition of protected "work" under Section 2 read with Section 13. The recovery panchnama is silent on recovery of user manuals or instruction manuals. Photographs relied upon by the complainant, placed via affidavit in reply, are not part of investigation papers and cannot be relied upon.

The Court rejected the argument that MRP stickers, barcode labels, and technical model stickers constitute "original literary works." Factual data and standard numbers cannot originate as original literary authorship. Basic safety/operational instructions printed inside hardware packages are purely ancillary/functional text. The primary offence alleged is sale of counterfeit Apple hardware accessories, squarely falling under Sections 103 & 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The complainant cannot camouflage a trademark dispute as a copyright offence to bypass procedural safeguards under Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act.

The Court then examined whether proceedings could continue under the Trade Marks Act. Section 115(4) contains an unambiguous proviso: "the police officer, before making any search and seizure, shall obtain the opinion of the Registrar on facts involved in the offence relating to trade mark and shall abide by the opinion so obtained." No prior written opinion was sought or obtained from the Registrar before the raid. This is a statutory condition precedent, not a mere formality. Search and seizure in defiance of Section 115(4) renders the search void ab initio, and evidence gathered is legally vitiated.

Further, Section 115(4) mandates: "No police officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent shall search and seize without warrant." The FIR reveals the raid was executed under a Police Inspector with Head Constables and Constables - officers below DSP/ACP rank. The entire search/seizure was carried out by officers lacking statutory authority.

The Court found a clear pattern of colourable exercise of power. The complainant-company, aware of Trade Marks Act requirements, deliberately dressed up a trademark dispute as "Copyright Infringement" under Section 63 to bypass statutory checks and obtain an immediate raid through station-level police. Courts cannot be silent spectators to such procedural circumvention. Allowing fallback on trademark charges would sanction deliberate evasion of statutory mandate.

The precedents relied upon by the petitioner were found applicable: Mihir Surendrabhai Shah and Ashok Kumar establish mandatory non-compliance with Section 115(4) (Registrar's opinion, DSP rank officer); Binita Rahul Shah, Mayur Kanaiyalal Shah, Dagubhai Musabhai Sheikh, and Sandip Dube establish that selling duplicate commercial spare parts does not constitute criminal copyright infringement and trademark disputes cannot be improperly converted into copyright FIRs.

"The record demonstrates a clear pattern of colourable exercise of power. The complainant-company, fully aware that a raid under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, required prior opinion from the Registrar and execution by a DSP rank officer, deliberately dressed up a pure trademark dispute as a 'Copyright Infringement' under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. This subterfuge was employed precisely to bypass the statutory checks of Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act and obtain an immediate raid through local station-level police officers."

The Verdict

The petition was allowed. The Court quashed and set aside FIR No. C.R. 11191026220492 dated 19.10.2022 registered at Kalupur Police Station, Ahmedabad City, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner. The rule was made absolute. Direct service was permitted.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Copyright Act Cannot Be Weaponised For Trademark Disputes

• Commercial hardware (chargers, cables, earphones, smartwatches) and functional labels (MRP stickers, barcode tags, seal stickers) are not "artistic" or "literary works" under Sections 2(c), 13 of the Copyright Act.
• Selling counterfeit goods bearing a registered trademark attracts Sections 103, 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 - not Section 63 of the Copyright Act.
• Practitioners must challenge FIRs that mislabel trademark counterfeiting as copyright infringement at the threshold under Section 482 CrPC.

Section 115(4) Trade Marks Act Safeguards Are Jurisdictional, Not Directory

• Prior Registrar's opinion is a condition precedent for any search/seizure under the Trade Marks Act. Absence renders the search void ab initio.
• Only officers of DSP/ACP rank or above can conduct search/seizure under Section 115(4). Raids by Police Inspectors, Head Constables, or Constables are jurisdictionally invalid.
• Evidence gathered in violation of these safeguards is legally vitiated and cannot sustain prosecution.
• Courts will not permit "conversion" of a procedurally defective trademark raid into a copyright case or vice versa to cure statutory non-compliance.

FIR Must Plead Copyrightable Work With Specificity

• An FIR under Section 63 must explicitly identify the original literary/artistic work in which copyright subsists and how the seized items infringe it.
• Generic allegations of "goods infringing copyright" without specifying the protected work (e.g., user manuals, packaging artwork, software code) are insufficient.
• Photographs or documents produced via affidavit in reply - not part of the police investigation record - cannot cure pleading deficiencies in the FIR.