Sections 102-107 of Trademark Act, 1999

1. Section 102 – Falsifying and falsely applying trademarks.

2. Section 103 – Penalty for applying false trademarks, trade

description etc.

a. Shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall

not be less than 6 months but which may extend to 3 years
AND fine which shall not be less than 50K but may extend to
2Lacs.

3. Section 104 – Penalty for selling goods or providing services to

which false trademark or false trade description is applied.

4. Section 105 – Enhanced penalty on second and subsequent

conviction.

5. Section 106 –Penalty for removing piece goods etc. that are
contrary to section 81.
a. Section 81- repealed by 2010 amendment.

6. Section 107 – Penalty for falsely representing a trademark as

registered.

CASE LAWS:

1. Givo Limited vs Arun Singhal 

The bare provision indicates that if any person has in his possession
any such goods for sale to which any false trademark is found
applied would be liable. Thus, the possession of such goods, in
itself, is punishable. It really does not matter whether such
trademark was applied by that person or by someone else and as
long as any such person is in possession of any such goods for the
purpose of sale, the offence is complete.

2. Piyush Subhashbhai Ranipa vs State of Maharastra

The accused have falsely applied the informant’s TM to their product
and have attempted to sell those products. Thus this act also
attracts section 420 r/w 511 of IPC. The public were induced or an
 attempt was made to induce the public to buy these products under
the impression that these products were manufactured by the
informant’s company. Hence the commission of offence under
Section 103 of TM Act is clearly made out.

3. Kasim Ali v/s State of Madhya Pradesh

In this case, a complaint was filed against the applicant saying that
applicants are using the brand name ‘SENTINELS’  for selling their
electric product whereas the trademark has already been registered
by M/S Vertex Manufacturing CO. Pvt. Ltd.  Thus the applicants
are misusing the trademark and also cheating and confusing the
public by using the same registered trademark. The court held that
looking at the facts of FIR it seems that applicants have committed
the offence of false applying under Section 102 of the Trademark
Act 1999. (The court had decided that the applicants can be
prosecuted under section 102 r/w 103 of TM Act but for the section
420 IPC and 115 of TM Act, it decided negatively).