In a recent case, Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Mr. Omi and Anr, CCP(O) 10/2018 in CS(COMM) 291/2018, the Delhi High Court, in the Trademark infringement suit on August 7, 2018 sentenced one of the defendants to a simple imprisonment for one month along with a fine of 2000 rupees for making false statements under oath.
The suit was filed against the defendants for the sale of counterfeit products bearing the Petitioner’s registered trademark and logo. The Petitioner, Louis Vuitton, had sought for permanent injunction against the shop owner to restrain the latter from infringing his trademark, copyright, passing off, etc.
An ex-parte ad interim injunction was passed in favor of the Petitioner and a Local Commissioner was appointed to visit the premises of the Defendants no. 1 and 2, wherein the infringing goods were found. Both the defendants denied selling branded goods, so they were examined by the Court. Since, the Defendant No. 2 denied selling any branded goods under oath, the Petitioner moved an application to appoint another Local Commissioner.
The second Local Commissioner, upon investigation found a huge stock of counterfeited products in the suit premises. Consequently, the Petitioner filed a ‘Contempt Petition’ wherein it was averred that the defendant upon examination by the Court had knowingly and maliciously made false statements under oath and tried to evade liability for his infringing activities, and was thus, liable to be proceeded against under Section 14 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1971”).
The counsel for the defendants admitted that the Defendant No. 2 had lied before this Hon’ble Court about the duration of operation of his shop, the types of goods he dealt in, and had falsely stated under oath that he never sold any branded products.
Held:
The Hon’ble Court held that Defendant No. 2 had committed ‘perjury’ by making false statements under oath, and thus invoked its contempt jurisdiction as it had the effect of interfering and/or impeding with the administration of justice.
The Court stated, “a local commissioner appointed by the court is effectively the eyes and ears of the court and the report is part of the court record…”.
It was accordingly held that the reports of the Local Commissioner form a part of the Court record and can form the basis of an action under Section 14 of the Act of 1971. Section 14 deals with Contempt in the face of the Court. Under the said section, the Judge in whose face the contempt is committed can himself/herself forthwith take notice and issue orders of contempt against the contemnor.
Since, in the present case, the Defendant No. 2 had admitted to lying under oath, the Hon’ble Court did not consider it necessary to follow the procedure of framing a charge and proceeding with a trial. The Court also appreciated the truthfulness and honest stand taken by the learned counsel of the defendants.
However, the Hon’ble Court was also of the view that lying under oath does strike a blow at the rule of law and that ends of justice would be met if the Defendant No. 2 is committed to one month simple imprisonment with a fine of 2000 rupees.
The suit was accordingly disposed off.
