Introduction:
In a significant intellectual property rights (IPR) enforcement case, the Bombay High Court emphasised the critical role of police assistance in executing ex-parte ad interim orders and flagged the failure of police personnel to provide necessary support to Additional Special Receivers. The case, Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Ashok Kumar & Unknown Persons in Maharashtra, involved a trademark infringement dispute wherein the plaintiff, Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), sought urgent relief to prevent the sale and distribution of counterfeit products. The Court had earlier granted ex-parte ad-interim reliefs, appointing an Additional Special Receiver to assist the Court Receiver in executing the order. However, the Additional Special Receiver faced significant hurdles as police officers failed to provide the required assistance, ultimately allowing the defendants to remove the counterfeit goods before action could be taken. Justice Manish Pitale, presiding over the matter, strongly criticised the lack of cooperation from the police, emphasising that Additional Special Receivers act as an extended arm of the Court and must be given immediate and effective police support. The Court underscored that non-cooperation from police officers undermines judicial authority and hinders the enforcement of intellectual property laws. The case brought to light issues regarding the execution of court orders in intellectual property disputes, stressing that the police must not demand fees or charges for their assistance. Consequently, the Court directed senior police officials, including the Commissioner of Police, to sensitise local police personnel on their duty to comply with court orders and assist Additional Special Receivers in enforcing intellectual property rights.
Arguments of Both Sides:
The applicant, Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), represented by Mr Hiren Kamod and his legal team, argued that the non-cooperation of police personnel had severely hampered the execution of the ex-parte injunction granted by the Court. The company submitted that it had secured an urgent order to restrain the sale and distribution of counterfeit goods, and the Court had appointed an Additional Special Receiver to assist in implementing the order. However, the Additional Special Receiver’s site report indicated that police officers were unresponsive and failed to provide timely support, leading to the defendants disposing of the counterfeit products before they could be seized. HUL contended that such inaction by the police effectively rendered the Court’s order meaningless and emboldened counterfeiters to continue their illegal activities without fear of legal repercussions. Additionally, the applicant highlighted that in some cases, police officers had demanded official fees or charges for providing assistance, which was entirely inappropriate as the Additional Special Receiver was acting under the Court’s direction.
On the other hand, the defendants did not actively contest the allegations but benefited from the police’s failure to act, allowing them to evade the consequences of their illegal actions. The Court also considered reports indicating that the police officers were either unaware of their obligations under the law or deliberately ignored them, thereby enabling the removal of counterfeit goods. The lack of police intervention, despite clear judicial instructions, was seen as a major lapse in the enforcement of intellectual property laws.
Court’s Judgment:
The Bombay High Court took strong exception to the failure of police officers to assist the Additional Special Receiver, stating that such inaction undermines the majesty of the judiciary. Justice Manish Pitale ruled that an Additional Special Receiver, when executing court orders, is an agent of the Court and must be given immediate and effective police assistance. The Court emphasised that the Presiding Judge cannot personally oversee the execution of orders and relies on such officers to enforce judicial decisions. Therefore, police cooperation is crucial in ensuring that counterfeit products are seized and intellectual property rights are protected. The Court noted that the failure of the police had allowed the defendants to remove the infringing goods, thereby nullifying the purpose of the injunction order. The judgment stressed that the police must act swiftly and in compliance with judicial directions to prevent such lapses in the future.
To address these concerns, the Court issued strict directions to the Commissioner of Police, the Joint Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), and the Deputy Commissioners of Police to immediately sensitise local police officers regarding their duty to assist Additional Special Receivers. The judgment further clarified that police officers must not demand any fees or charges for their assistance, as the Additional Special Receiver is acting on behalf of the Court. The Court also granted an extension to the Additional Special Receiver to submit the report, acknowledging the challenges faced due to police inaction. The ruling reaffirmed the importance of upholding judicial orders and ensuring that law enforcement authorities do not obstruct the execution of intellectual property rights.