The Bombay High Court of India held that, On the basis of "Trademark law" The first 115 article, The police have no right to seize premises suspected of infringing goods.

In view of this, By Judge Shamila．Deshmukh (Sharmila Deshmukh) And Alif．Doctor (Arif Doctor) The panel ordered the closure of a factory in the town of Chakan in Pune.

The court noted that: "Read carefully "1999 Trademark act" The first 115 The provisions of the article can be found, The police do not have the power to seize the factory premises where the items are located. "1999 Trademark act" The first 115 Article No (4) The provisions of that paragraph allow the police to seize the items listed in that paragraph without a warrant. There is no dispute, The police have no power to seize factory premises. "

Basis of petitioner "1999 Trademark act" The first 103, 104 and 105 Article for emergency relief, Requests for the unsealing of the factory premises that have been seized.

The petitioner's counsel submitted, "1999 Trademark act" The first 115 The clause does not authorize police to seize factory premises. He points out, "1999 Trademark act" The first 115 Article No (4) Provision of paragraph, The police have the power to seize goods involved in crimes without a warrant, mould, machine, plate, Other tools or items. He put forward, "1999 Trademark act" The first 115 The provisions of this article do not permit the seizure of factory premises.

therefore, The court held that, The petitioner has presented prima facie evidence, Interim relief may be granted under the terms of the action. (Be compiled from www. latestlaws. com)

TRANSLATORS: Rason group　proofread: Wang Dan

　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.