'Must Conduct Inquiry In TM Office To See If Forgery Reflected In Records': Delhi HC Quashes Forgery Case Filed By Anchor Health Against Colgate-Palmolive

The Delhi High Court has quashed a case of forgery filed by Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. against Colgate-Palmolive Company. The Court held that the Metropolitan Magistrate should have conducted an inquiry from the office of the Trade Marks Registry to ascertain whether the alleged forgery was reflected in the records.

In that context, the Bench of Justice Amit Sharma observed that, "It is the specific case of Anchor that Colgate had failed to establish any prima facie case before any forum for grant of interim injunction with respect to use of red and white combination of colours in respect of dental care products by Anchor and filed CS(OS) 1709/2005 claiming a fresh cause of action on the basis of certificate of registration by placing on record a forged copy of the registration certificate as well as certificate for use in legal proceedings. In the present circumstance, an inquiry under Section 340 of the CrPC, as prayed for by Anchor, cannot be separated from the alleged forgery with respect to the documents in question. The foundational fact for initiation of prosecution for offence punishable under Section 193 of the IPC in the facts of the present case, as averred by Anchor, would be establishing the fact that the documents are forged."

The case revolved around allegations of forgery related to trademark registration documents, centred on the use of red and white colour combinations on toothpaste packaging.

Colgate had initiated multiple lawsuits against Anchor, alleging trademark infringement. In one of these lawsuits, Colgate presented a certificate of registration for trademark number 1223059, which Anchor claimed was forged.

Anchor’s complaint, filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), accused Colgate of fabricating the certificate of registration and its certified copy for use in legal proceedings. The magistrate issued summons to Colgate and others based on prima facie evidence of forgery. The complaint also implicated the Deputy Registrar of TradeMarks, alleging collusion with Colgate.

However, the Trade Marks Registry did not deny issuing the certified copy of the registration certificate, attributing any discrepancies to possible errors by the Registry rather than intentional forgery by Colgate.

The High Court observed that, "as alleged by Anchor, in the same course of transaction, two separate offences have been committed and for one set of offences, complaint of Court is mandatory and therefore it is not possible to split them up. In these circumstances, the complaint with regard to other set of offences for which no complaint of Court is required cannot be sustained. The present complaint would not be maintainable and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the said complaint."

Cause Title: Colgate Palmolive Company & Ors. vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Click here to read/download the Judgment