Raymond Limited faces Criminal Charges under Copyright Violation of a Criminologist’s ad-film

Since 7 months the Textile Giant has been facing legal concerns from a Criminology Firm by Mr. Snehil Dhall Criminologist under Copyright Section 51, 52 (a), 63, 69

Mumbai: The 80+ years old Textile Giant must have faced an allegation for the first time in their history of litigations of its type. It has been reported that Mr. Snehil Dhall a UK qualified Criminologist had launched his first ad-film in 2014 for promoting his company called Crimeophobia which is a Criminology Firm.  The company Crimeophobia Limited was initially registered in England & Wales and it stands as proprietary in India while Dhall leaves no stone unturned and continues his battle with the giant. After observing the infringement in February 2015 during Cricket World Cup Series, he filed his complaint against the ad-film of Raymond Limited with YouTube, a Civil Suit at Dindoshi City Civil Court and a Criminal Complaint with the Aarey Police Station, Mumbai.

The ad was deleted twice by YouTube and the same was voluntarily removed by Raymond Limited from TV broadcast due to which Dhall had withdrawn his Civil Suit as well. As per the jurisdiction, the Civil Suit was only for restricting Raymond Limited from the use of ad-film on TV and not for any Compensation. However, the criminal complaint with Aarey Police Station had its intensive investigative proceedings which confirmed that Raymond Limited didn’t have any evidence to prove their legitimate position against the claims of Dhall. The legal department of Raymond Limited visited in large numbers to the Police Station but refused to give their statement. The Police had also sent notices to various TV Channels and even they refused to give their statement since it was evident that Raymond Limited didn’t submit any documents for their ad-film with the Copyright Department of India.

Based on the investigation, the criminal complaint of copyright infringement was accepted by the Senior Police Inspector and the Assistant Commissioner of Police and was thereafter A.C.P had forwarded to Deputy Commissioner of Police (Zone 12) for his final permission to lodge the F.I.R against Raymond Limited. The application was rejected by the D.C.P claiming it to be a Civil Case even after Dhall had submitted all the documents of his copyright and Raymond Limited submitting none of their documents. On this Dhall said “YouTube had deleted the Ad-Film twice within 24 hours of my complaint but Indian Criminal Justice System has no importance to Copyright Violations”. He added “Every individual or companies should file their copyright documentations with the Government of India and claim their hardwork against such Giant who are habitual offenders and misuse the Indian Justice Mechanism”. The D.C.P doesn’t clarify his legal stand over rejecting the complaint in writing due to unknown reasons.

At the time of asking for clarification for withdrawing the Civil Case, Dhall mentioned that it was of no use to waste the time of the Court when the purpose was solved of getting the ad-film removed from the TV, however, Raymond Limited is still eligible for Criminal Case due to which he plans to continue his battle. After the case was shut by the Police Station over 3 months ago, Dhall had filed R.T.I to get all the documents linked to the case but every time the Police gave him one document at a time. It took him 3 months of heated arguments to get all the documents after he lodged another complaint with the Additional Commissioner of North Mumbai Police for getting all the documents. The final document which he received was the internal report of Aarey Police Station to the ACP and DCP which stated very clearly that Dhall had submitted all the relevant documents for the F.I.R under Copyright Act and Raymond Limited didn’t submit any documents and also refused to give their statement. Dhall now plans to file a complaint with the Mumbai Police Commissioner against Raymond Limited and also on all the TV Channels that broadcasted the ad-film at their respective jurisdictions.