In a significant decision, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a forgery case brought by Anchor toothpaste against Colgate, marking another chapter in the ongoing legal battles between the two companies. Anchor had accused Colgate of forging documents to support a trademark infringement claim.
The case, registered as [Colgate Palmolive Company & Ors v State of NCT & Anr + Connected matters], was quashed by Justice Amit Sharma. Anchor’s allegations revolved around the supposed forgery of trademark registration documents that Colgate had submitted in court.
Justice Sharma annulled the complaint and the 2012 summoning order from the magistrate court. His ruling noted the overlap between Anchor’s forgery claims and a separate application Anchor had filed under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This section allows courts to initiate preliminary inquiries into document-related offenses presented as evidence.
The court found it impractical to separate the alleged offenses under Section 340 from those presented in the forgery case. “Given the same course of transaction for the alleged offenses, a mandatory court complaint is required. Thus, the present complaint cannot be maintained, and the magistrate’s cognizance of it was improper,” Justice Sharma stated.
The dispute traces back to a series of legal wranglings over the red and white trademark used by both companies. Anchor claimed that Colgate, having failed to secure an interim injunction, resorted to fabricating documents to launch a new lawsuit.
Anchor’s trial court complaint accused Colgate and its officials of multiple offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including forgery and making false claims in court. The trial court had initially issued summons based on these allegations. However, the High Court found insufficient grounds to sustain the trial court’s decision.
Prominent legal representation included Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Arvind Nigam, Ramesh Gupta, and Arvind Varma for Colgate, while Anchor was represented by Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain, among others. Additional Public Prosecutor Mukes Kumar appeared for Delhi Police, highlighting the case’s high-profile nature.
This ruling underscores the complexity of trademark disputes and the stringent scrutiny applied to allegations of forgery within legal proceedings.
