Binny Kalra, a partner at Anand and Anand, recounts the challenges and dangers of a search and seizure mission in India
A civil lawsuit was filed in Delhi High Court by the Luxottica Group, owner of the Ray-Ban eyewear brand.
A few weeks earlier a cluster of trading establishments was identified and investigated for dealing in counterfeit Ray-Ban frames. The traders were operating out of tiny shops in a congested wholesale market with narrow lanes and teeming crowds. Four establishments sold the goods to an investigator without invoices – a common practice in the vast unorganized Indian market.
Within days of receiving the investigation reports, the lawyers prepared a plaint and applied for an interim injunction and Anton Piller orders, which permit search and seizure operations without prior warning. The availability of an authorized signatory of the plaintiff in Delhi was useful as the complaint, affidavits and authorization forms to engage attorneys could be signed immediately.
The case came up for preliminary hearing within a day of filing. The judge examined the evidence: the plaintiff’s Indian trade mark registrations, some materials on the company’s history and business activities and sworn affidavits from the investigator, who had probed the defendants’ premises for counterfeit Ray-Ban products.
You must be a
subscribersubscribersubscribersubscriber
to read this content, please
subscribesubscribesubscribesubscribe
today.
For group subscribers, please click here to access.
Interested in group subscription? Please contact us.
你需要登录去解锁本文内容。欢迎注册账号。如果想阅读月刊所有文章，欢迎成为我们的订阅会员成为我们的订阅会员。
Binny Kalra is a senior partner and head of the litigation department at Anand and Anand in Delhi.
