You’d expect a famous brand to win a trademark suit against a copycat. But Sony lost — after 20 years — not on the merits, but because its plaint was improperly verified and its powers of attorney weren’t validly notarised. A sharp reminder that paperwork can sink even the strongest case.
The case
Sony sued Sony Trade Links Pvt Ltd for a permanent injunction (infringement and passing off). The Calcutta High Court dismissed the suit — the plaint wasn’t properly verified, and the people who signed the powers of attorney and deposed as witnesses weren’t competent to do so.
The defects that sank it
The defendants argued the suit was improperly instituted:
- Verification. The plaint was verified by the plaintiff’s counsel claiming knowledge of the company’s facts — but only the principal officer/director can do so, and there was no Board resolution authorising the counsel.
- Powers of attorney. Two POAs (Exhibits A and B) were inadmissible — the company executive didn’t sign before the Notary Public in Japan; his agent took it to the notary, so with the executive absent, the POA was invalid.
- Witness. The person deposing to corroborate the exhibits wasn’t competent, because the exhibits themselves were inadmissible; and the counsel who verified the plaint wasn’t deposed.
Sony argued the defects were curable and that the POA authorised the counsel to verify — but the court sided with the defendants, citing:
- Section 14, Notaries Act — a Central Government notification is essential for a foreign notary’s act to be relied on in India; none was submitted, so Exhibits A and B were invalid; and
- verification must be by the principal officer or director, so counsel’s verification was improper.
The outcome
With the plaint itself inadmissible, the court never reached the infringement/passing-off question — and dismissed the suit.
The lesson
This would likely have been a cake-walk had Sony made out a prima facie case on goodwill and reputation. Instead, technical defects stopped it before the merits. The case dates to around 1995, heard and decided in 2015 — 20 years — then dismissed on paperwork. A wake-up call on the importance of documentary requirements: proper verification, competent signatories, and validly notarised foreign documents.
The takeaways
- Verify the plaint correctly — by a principal officer/director, with a Board resolution.
- Notarise foreign POAs properly — the signatory must appear, and Section 14 formalities met.
- Depose competent witnesses — inadmissible exhibits sink corroborating testimony.
- Paperwork can beat the merits — even a famous mark loses on defective documents.
Frequently asked questions
Can a trademark suit be dismissed on technical defects? Yes — Sony’s suit was dismissed despite its famous brand because the plaint was improperly verified and the powers of attorney weren’t validly notarised.
Who can verify a company’s plaint? Only the principal officer or director, ideally with a Board resolution authorising them — not, as here, the counsel without such authority.
What’s the rule on foreign-notarised documents? Under Section 14 of the Notaries Act, a Central Government notification is needed for a foreign notary’s act to be relied on in India; without it, the document is inadmissible.
What’s the practical lesson? Get the documentary basics right — verification, competent signatories and valid notarisation — before the merits are ever reached.
Legislation referred to
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999
- The Notaries Act, 1952