RAM KISHORE versus STATE OF U.P.

RAM KISHORE versus STATE OF U.P.

Under s. 92 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, the limitation period for prosecuting offences runs from the date of commission or discovery of the specific offence charged—not from the date of first discovery of any infringement—and mere protest does not amount to acquiescence or assent to use of a trade...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Ram Kishore; Respondent: State of U.P.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 March 1966
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated November 26, 1963, of the Allahabad High Court in Government Appeal No. 782 of 1962
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Infringement of Trade Mark, Limitation Period for Prosecution, Acquiescence
Criminal Law Intellectual Property Law Trade Marks Infringement of Trade Mark Limitation Period for Prosecution Acquiescence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ram Kishore

Appellant

State of U.P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated November 26, 1963, of the Allahabad High Court in Government Appeal No. 782 of 1962

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the period prescribed for launching prosecution under s. 92 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, commences from the date of first discovery of infringement or the date of commission/discovery of the offence charged.
  2. 2 Whether there was acquiescence by the complainants sufficient to constitute assent to the use of the allegedly infringing trade mark.

Ratio Decidendi

Under s. 92 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, the limitation period for prosecuting offences runs from the date of commission or discovery of the specific offence charged—not from the date of first discovery of any infringement—and mere protest does not amount to acquiescence or assent to use of a trade mark.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Conviction restored; sentence reduced to a fine of Rs. 1,000 on each charge.