Rule 70(9) of Copyright Rules and the Duty of prior Notice to party interested
Facts:The petitioner, New Bharat Overseas, has been engaged in the business of processing, selling, and exporting rice since 1978. It holds long-standing trademark registrations for the mark “TAJ MAHAL,” including one registered in 1981 under No. 338004 and another in 1989 under No. 387177, both in Class 30. Alongside trademark rights, the petitioner also secured copyright registration of its artistic label featuring the “TAJ MAHAL” device, registered under No. A-50558/1990.
The grievance of the petitioner arose when it discovered that the respondent, Bhagwati Lacto Vegetarian Exports Pvt. Ltd., obtained copyright registration No. A-130837/2019 dated 06.09.2019 for an artistic work titled “GARIMAA GOLD,” which also prominently depicted the Taj Mahal and was used on packaging of rice. The petitioner alleged that this registration was obtained surreptitiously and directly conflicted with its own earlier registered rights. It further argued that the respondent had been earlier accused of infringing activities, leading to FIRs in 2017 and 2019, in which seizure of goods had already taken place.
Procedural Detail:The petitioner filed a rectification petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, challenging the copyright registration granted to respondent no. 1. The petitioner contended that respondent no. 1 obtained registration without complying with Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013, which mandates that notice of the application must be given to any person who claims an interest or disputes rights in the subject matter of the copyright. According to the petitioner, since FIRs and criminal proceedings were pending at the time of the application, there was clear knowledge of dispute. However, no notice was served to it.
Dispute:The core legal dispute was whether the registration of copyright granted in favour of respondent no. 1 for the artistic work “GARIMAA GOLD” was valid when the statutory requirement of notice under Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013, had not been complied with. A secondary question raised by the respondent was whether the petitioner could claim exclusivity over the depiction of the Taj Mahal, which is a public monument and generally free for all to use under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Detailed Reasoning:The petitioner argued that the registration of the impugned artistic work was procedurally unsustainable, as Rule 70(9) requires the applicant for registration to give notice of its application to every person who claims or has any interest in the subject matter of the copyright. Since disputes were pending between the parties, and FIRs and charge sheets existed against the respondent, the petitioner clearly qualified as an “interested person.” It was also highlighted that in Form XIV, where the applicant must disclose whether there is any dispute over ownership, respondent no. 1 had suppressed material facts by failing to mention the ongoing disputes.
The respondent countered by arguing that no exclusivity could be claimed over the Taj Mahal, a national monument, which is free for use under Section 52(s) and (t) of the Copyright Act. They also contended that FIRs against a party do not automatically make the petitioner an “interested person” entitled to notice.
The Court noted that this case was not about deciding who owns the depiction of the Taj Mahal or whether it is common to trade. Instead, it focused on whether there was compliance with Rule 70(9). It was undisputed that no notice had been given to the petitioner despite the existence of ongoing criminal and civil disputes over the same artistic work. The Court emphasized that the statutory mandate under Rule 70(9) is clear: any person claiming or disputing rights in the subject matter must be notified. Since the petitioner had active disputes against the respondent, evidenced by FIRs and chargesheets, the respondent could not have ignored this requirement.
The Court found that non-compliance with Rule 70(9) rendered the registration procedurally flawed. The act of obtaining registration without serving notice undermined the integrity of the process and deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to oppose the registration. The Court rejected the contention that FIRs did not make the petitioner an “interested person.” On the contrary, the disputes and legal proceedings established that the petitioner had a genuine and active interest in the subject matter.
At the same time, the Court clarified that it was not making any finding on the merits of whether the Taj Mahal could be exclusively appropriated as part of an artistic work. Those issues were left open for the Registrar of Copyrights to decide afresh when reconsidering the application.
Decision:The High Court of Delhi held that the registration granted in favour of respondent no. 1 under Copyright No. A-130837/2019 was procedurally invalid due to non-compliance with Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013. The Court revoked and cancelled the impugned registration. It directed that the application of respondent no. 1 would be treated as revived, and the petitioner was permitted to file objections within four weeks. The Registrar of Copyrights was instructed to adjudicate the application afresh in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations in the Court’s order.
Case Title: New Bharat Overseas Vs Bhagwati Lacto Vegetarian Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 843/2022
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Date of Order: 08 September 2025
Hon’ble Judge: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
No comments:
Post a Comment