Press / to search

Chapter XII - Offences, Penalties and Procedure

Section 103

Section 103: False marks and descriptions: punishment

The listed false-mark, false-description and origin-indication conduct can attract imprisonment and a fine, subject to the statutory defence and sentencing proviso.

On this page

Need advice on Section 103?

This article is for general information. Refer to the Trade Marks Act, 1999 official text for the official provisions. If you need professional advice for your situation, contact Bizeneed.

Contact us

Statutory text

Bare law

Any person who—

(a) falsifies any trade mark; or

(b) falsely applies to goods or services any trade mark; or

(c) makes, disposes of, or has in his possession, any die, block, machine, plate or other instrument for the purpose of falsifying or of being used for falsifying, a trade mark; or

(d) applies any false trade description to goods or services; or

(e) applies to any goods to which an indication of the country or place in which they were made or produced or the name and address of the manufacturer or person for whom the goods are manufactured is required to be applied under section 139, a false indication of such country, place, name or address; or

(f) tampers with, alters or effaces an indication of origin which has been applied to any goods to which it is required to be applied under section 139; or

(g) causes any of the things above-mentioned in this section to be done, shall, unless he proves that he acted, without intent to defraud, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:

Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or a fine of less than fifty thousand rupees.

Rule and business relevance

The ordinary range is six months to three years of imprisonment and ₹50,000 to ₹2 lakh fine. The accused may prove acting without intent to defraud. A court may go below the specified minimum imprisonment or fine for adequate and special reasons recorded in the judgment.

Limits and related provisions

Do not present the minimum as an inevitable sentence or claim that every inaccurate marketing phrase proves this offence. Match conduct to a listed limb and examine the defence and evidence.

Hypothetical business example

Hypothetical example: A business is accused of applying a false origin indication required under section 139. The court must assess the specified conduct and any proved absence of intent to defraud.

Practical decision flow

Identify the precise charged conduct and affected goods or services.

Collect evidence about authorisation, origin and intent.

Assess the statutory defence and the court’s sentencing powers.

Applying the Act and current procedure

Read the statutory rule together with the applicable Trade Marks Rules, current Registry directions and the facts of the particular mark. Forms, fees and procedural requirements should be checked against their current official source before filing.

Practical checklist

Do

  • Identify the precise charged conduct and affected goods or services.
  • Collect evidence about authorisation, origin and intent.
  • Assess the statutory defence and the court’s sentencing powers.

Avoid

  • Do not present the minimum as an inevitable sentence or claim that every inaccurate marketing phrase proves this offence. Match conduct to a listed limb and examine the defence and evidence.

Glossary

Intent to defraud
The intent addressed by the express burden placed on the accused.
Recorded special reasons
The basis required for a sentence below the stated minimum.

Frequently asked questions

Is a fine the only possible consequence?

No. The ordinary provision specifies imprisonment and fine.

Can the court go below the minimum?

Yes, on the adequate and special reasons stated in the proviso.

Does the provision contain an intent-related defence?

It allows the accused to prove acting without intent to defraud.

Need help applying this provision to your situation?

Contact Bizeneed

Last updated 10 October 2026