Trade Mark s.103/104 FIRs and Quashing on Settlement

Explainer · IP Litigation · Last verified October 2026

Updated for 2026 · Claw Editorial

A trade mark dispute is usually a civil matter, but in India it can also become a police case. A brand owner can lodge an FIR under sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the other side may face a search, a seizure, or even arrest. Many of these cases later settle, and then the accused asks the High Court to quash the FIR. This explainer covers the statute, the police powers, and how quashing on settlement works. Last verified October 2026.

01The problem with a criminal trade mark case

A criminal trade mark case puts personal liberty on the table in what is really a commercial fight. That is why both sides take it seriously, and why it settles so often.

Why brand owners choose the criminal route

A civil suit takes time. A police complaint can move faster. If the police search a shop or a godown and seize the goods, the pressure on the other side is immediate. Brand owners use this against counterfeit goods, where the copy is exact and the infringer is hard to track.

Why the accused panics

Offences under these sections are cognizable, so an FIR can be registered and the police can act without waiting for a court. The accused sees seized stock, a lost business week, and the risk of arrest. Often the real aim is to reach a settlement quickly.

Why settlement does not end the case by itself

Once an FIR exists, the State is a party. A private settlement between the brand owner and the accused does not close the FIR on its own. The accused must go to the High Court and ask for quashing. That is where most of the law in this area lives.

02What sections 103 and 104 say

Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 create two criminal offences connected to false trade marks and false trade descriptions.

Section 103: applying a false trade mark

Section 103 punishes a person who falsifies a trade mark, falsely applies a trade mark, or makes or possesses the tools used for it, and also covers false trade descriptions. The words "falsifies" and "falsely applies" are defined in section 102. In simple terms, this is the act of making the fake or putting the mark on goods without the owner’s right.

Section 104: selling or dealing in such goods

Section 104 punishes the person who sells, lets for hire, exposes for sale, or has in possession for sale or trade, goods or services carrying a false trade mark or false trade description. This is the section often used against shopkeepers and distributors, not only the maker.

The punishment

For both sections, the punishment is imprisonment for a term of not less than six months, which may extend to three years, and a fine of not less than Rs 50,000, which may extend to Rs 2 lakh. The court may reduce these minimums for adequate and special reasons recorded in its judgment. Section 105 raises the punishment for a second or later conviction.

Sections 103 and 104 are cognizable offences, so the police can register an FIR and act without a court order, but a private settlement alone cannot close that FIR.

03How the police may act under section 115

Section 115 of the Act sets the rules for how a criminal trade mark case starts and what the police can do. These rules are the first place to look when you want to challenge a case.

Who can search and seize

Section 115(4) allows a police officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or above to search and seize, without a warrant, the goods, dies, blocks, machines, plates and other tools used in the offence. A lower-ranked officer does not have this power on his own.

The Registrar’s opinion

Before the search and seizure, the officer must obtain the opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks on the facts involved in the offence, and must abide by that opinion. Courts, including the Madras High Court in a 2025 matter reported on the SCC Online blog, have looked closely at what happens when this step is skipped. Other High Courts have taken different views on whether skipping it ends the whole case or only makes the seizure irregular, so the answer depends on the court and the facts.

Which court tries the case

Section 115(2) says that no court below a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class may try these offences.

Other charges often added

Police often add general offences such as cheating, which now sit under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Copyright Act offences may also be added where a label or artwork is copied. Quashing petitions have to deal with every section in the FIR, not only the trade mark ones.

04Quashing on settlement: the legal test

A High Court can quash an FIR on settlement using its inherent power, which was section 482 of the CrPC and is now section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The Supreme Court principles

Two Supreme Court decisions are cited most often. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 held that the High Court may quash even non-compoundable offences on settlement, but not serious offences such as murder or rape. Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 added guidance on when a settlement should be accepted, such as the nature of the offence, the stage of the case, and whether the dispute is mainly private.

Why trade mark FIRs suit quashing

The harm in a trade mark case is largely to a private commercial interest. Courts often see these as civil disputes with a criminal colour. When the owner confirms in writing that the dispute is settled, the accused has stopped using the mark, and the stock has been dealt with, a High Court has a strong reason to say that continuing the case serves no purpose.

What a settlement deed usually covers

• The accused stops using the mark and any deceptively similar mark.
• Seized goods are destroyed or handed over as agreed.
• Any payment, with its amount and mode, is stated clearly.
• The owner states that he has no objection to quashing.
• Any pending civil suit is disposed of in terms of the settlement.

05Delhi High Court practice

The Delhi High Court hears many quashing petitions from FIRs registered in Delhi, and its approach follows the Supreme Court principles above.

Delhi High Court benches have, in many settled criminal matters, quashed FIRs after both sides appeared, confirmed the settlement, and the court was satisfied that it was voluntary. In some matters the court has also refused to quash where it found that a settlement deed was used to avoid the law, for example where the accused appeared to be a repeat offender, as an SCC Online report from October 2024 on a different kind of case shows. For trade mark FIRs the court will usually look at whether the mark owner is present or has filed an affidavit, whether any costs should be paid, and whether the accused gives an undertaking not to use the mark again.

We have not confirmed a specific Delhi High Court order quashing a section 103 or 104 FIR that we are comfortable naming here. Rather than cite a case we could not verify, we suggest searching the Delhi High Court judgment portal and Indian Kanoon for the case type CRL.M.C. together with the words "Trade Marks Act" and "section 104".

06A practical checklist

Whether you act for the brand owner or the accused, the same facts decide the outcome. Check them in this order.

1. Read the FIR section by section. Note every offence added alongside ss.103 and 104.
2. Check the rank of the officer who searched or seized, and whether the Registrar’s opinion was taken first.
3. Confirm the mark’s registration status on the IP India public search, and the owner’s chain of title.
4. List every related proceeding: civil suit, cancellation, opposition, and any earlier criminal complaint on the same mark.
5. Draft the settlement so it also covers the civil case and the seized goods.
6. Prepare the quashing petition with the settlement deed, affidavits of both sides, and proof of compliance.

Step 3 is easy to miss. If the owner’s title is weak, that is useful to know before you negotiate. See chain of title in India. To check whether a counterparty has other litigation in court records, see the best litigation check APIs in India.

07Where Claw fits

Claw is an all-in-one legaltech platform for Indian advocates, law firms, and corporate legal teams, combining AI-based case search, an AI legal assistant (Legal GPT), case management, and compliance automation across all Indian courts and tribunals.

A criminal trade mark case runs from the FIR through the Magistrate and, on settlement, a quashing petition in the High Court, each step with its own listing and order. Claw tracks cases, orders and hearings across 9,102 courts, benches and forums, with results in under 5 seconds, so you can follow both the criminal matter and the related civil suit by party or advocate name. Its index of 30 crore+ judgments, covering the Supreme Court from 1950 and the High Courts from 1990, lets you pull the quashing orders and the Gian Singh and Narinder Singh line of authority before you draft.

Claw does not use customer documents to train AI models. Create a FREE Claw account to track a criminal trade mark FIR and its quashing petition by party or advocate name. To search the wider body of law, see case search across Indian courts.

08Sources and further reading

Check every section and citation against these primary sources before you rely on them:

• Section 115, Trade Marks Act, 1999: Indian Kanoon
• Trade Marks Act and public search: ipindia.gov.in
• Delhi High Court judgments: delhihighcourt.nic.in
• Claw: clawlaw.in

This page is general information, not legal advice. Last verified October 2026.

09Frequently asked questions