Case Title: Dwarka Matlani Vs. Jay Daryani
Date of Order: 31st January, 2025
Case No.: C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 704/2022
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:796
Court: High Court of Delhi
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
Facts of the Case:
1. The petitioner, Dwarka Matlani, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing products such as supari, sweet supari, mouth fresheners, and non-medicated confectionery under the trade name “Kishan Foods Products” and trademark ‘RAHUL.’
2. The petitioner has been using the label and artwork since 1997 and obtained trademark registration on 17th August 2007.
3. In April 2019, Matlani discovered that the respondent, Jay Daryani, an ex-employee and nephew of the petitioner, was using an identical or deceptively similar trademark and packaging under the name ‘ROYAL.’
4. A legal notice was sent to Daryani, who denied infringement, claiming that his adoption of ‘ROYAL AAM PACHAK TABLET’ was bona fide.
5. Despite opposition by Matlani, the Registrar of Copyrights granted a copyright registration to Daryani on 2nd May 2019.
6. Matlani filed an infringement suit in the District Court, Bharatpur, which granted an interim injunction against Daryani.
7. The Rajasthan High Court upheld this injunction.
8. Matlani then filed a rectification petition before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which was later transferred to the Delhi High Court.
Issues:
1. Whether the copyright registration granted to Jay Daryani for the label/packaging of ‘ROYAL’ was valid?
2. Whether the label/packaging of Daryani was a slavish imitation of Matlani’s ‘RAHUL’ label?
3. Whether Daryani concealed material facts while obtaining copyright registration?
Reasoning and Analysis by the Judge:
1. Similarity of Labels: The court compared the labels and found that Daryani’s label was a slavish imitation of Matlani’s, with identical colors, fonts, and placement of the brand name.
2. Prior Use and Goodwill: Matlani had been using the label since 1997 and had trademark registration, whereas Daryani applied for copyright only in 2019.
3. Lack of Defense by Respondent: Daryani failed to file a written reply or pay costs imposed earlier, and no representation was made in court.
4. Registrar’s Oversight: The court noted that Matlani’s objections were not adequately considered before granting Daryani’s copyright.
Decision of the Judge:
The court ruled in favor of Matlani and ordered the removal of Daryani’s copyright registration (Entry No. A-129092/2019) from the Copyright Register.
The court directed the Registrar of Copyrights to implement this order.
