Eipr India Private Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 September, 2020
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH ... COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.11423/2020
(M/s EIPR India Private Limited Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another)
Jabalpur, Dated
examined the complainant,
independent seizure mahazar witness, trainee Investigating Officer of
EIPR India Limited and other police officials who participated in the raid.
The learned ... stand as panchas, C.W.2 is the Junior Investigator of
EIPR Company took them to the Million Fashion shop situated
ladies belt and
other products in the name of LV over which EIPR company
had copyright, without obtaining any authorization or written
consent from ... road, opposite Commercial
Street Bangalore. Since his company i.e., EIPR Company had
copyright over the products of Louis Vuitton, has lodged the
complaint
examined only one witness by name Satish Kumar
the representative of EIPR company as PW.1. The testimony of
P.W.1 indicating that ... though the prosecution has examined
only witness who is the representative of EIPR Company and
he deposed regarding seized products as counterfeit, his
evidence
received the complaint from CW 1 Dhavalachandra the
Investigating Officer of EIPR Company regarding selling of
spurious regulators in the name of Crompton and Greaves ... obtained report from CW 5 Satish Kumar the General
Manager of EIPR Company about seized regulators as whether
they are original or duplicate. He recorded
Special P.P
Bengaluru-560001.
2. R. Satheesh Kumar,
General Manager (Ops.)
EIPR (India) Private Limited,
No.7, 8th Avenue,
Ashok Nagar,
Chennai-600083
Tamilunadu ... Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore-560001.
2. R. Satheesh Kumar,
General Manager (Ops.)
EIPR (India) Private Limited,
No.7, 8th Avenue,
Ashok Nagar,
Chennai-600083.
... Respondents
prayin§j"'~:to,._qLsa_sh th'eipr.oc'eedings initiated by the I Addi. Sessions
'._Judge, Turfiktlr m,_Cri.Misc
duplicate charger and
adopter in the name of Canon Company over which EIPR
group of companies had copyright, and thereby infringed the
copyright of said
leather
pouches are counterfeit in the different brand names over
which EIPR group of companies had copyright. Further, the
prosecution has to prove that
above
referred companies. Further, the prosecution has to prove that
the said EIPR Company had copyright and trade mark over the
above named brands. Further ... witnesses and has not got marked any documents
to prove that EIPR Company had copyright over the above named
products or Trade Mark over
