The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling delivered on **February 11, 2026**, set aside a common order passed by the Registrar of Copyrights dated January 28, 2026, and remanded multiple connected copyright registration applications back to the Registrar for fresh de novo consideration. The decision addresses critical procedural and substantive issues in the pre-registration scrutiny of artistic works under the Copyright Act, 1957, particularly where opposition arises from competitors in the industrial machinery sector. The appellant, Fornnax Technology Private Limited, sought copyright registration for artistic works consisting of technical drawings or views of components of its secondary shredder machines (notably the "Cutting Chamber Part of Secondary Shredder R-4000 Front View" and related models). The Registrar rejected these applications after entertaining oppositions from respondents (including competitors represented through counsel for R-2 to R-4), primarily on the ground that the works had been industrially applied to more than fifty articles, triggering the bar under Section 15(2) of the Act, and thus could not qualify for copyright protection.
The factual matrix revolves around Fornnax's claim to copyright in original artistic works embodied in engineering drawings or visual representations of shredder components designed for waste processing and recycling machinery. The company asserted that these were pure artistic expressions not intended solely for industrial application beyond limited production. The opposing parties, apparently competitors in the shredder or recycling equipment market, challenged the registrability, producing materials such as PR articles, website "success stories" claiming over 100 installations, and even YouTube/social media videos allegedly showing widespread commercial exploitation of the designs.
Procedurally, the appellant filed applications under Section 45 of the Copyright Act for entry in the Register of Copyrights. The Registrar, invoking powers under Section 45(2) to conduct such inquiry as deemed fit, entertained written oppositions and documents from the respondents, conducted a personal hearing on January 21, 2026, and passed the impugned common rejection order. Aggrieved, Fornnax preferred multiple connected appeals under Section 72 of the Act before the Delhi High Court, which were heard together.
The Court, speaking through Justice Tushar Rao Gedela in an oral judgment, identified two primary infirmities warranting remand. First, the Registrar failed to properly address the appellant's specific objection that the opposing respondents were not "persons interested" as contemplated under Rule 70(9) and (10) of the Copyright Rules, 2013, which govern pre-registration scrutiny and opposition at the application stage. Instead, the Registrar erroneously equated or imported the concept of "person aggrieved" (who can seek rectification or cancellation post-registration under Section 50) into the pre-grant phase, thereby allowing competitors to participate and oppose when their locus standi may be limited to post-grant proceedings. The Court emphasized that these are distinct statutory stages with different standing requirements, and the failure to deal with this objection vitiated the order. Reliance was placed on the appellant's submissions citing the Allahabad High Court in Pramod Sharma vs. State of U.P. (2023 SCC OnLine All 1904) to define "person interested," which remained unaddressed.
Second, the Court found a serious breach of natural justice in the Registrar's reliance on electronic evidence (website claims of over 100 installations, PR materials, YouTube videos, and social media content) to invoke the Section 15(2) bar without furnishing copies to the appellant prior to or during the hearing, and without granting any effective opportunity to rebut the same with counter-evidence. The appellant had specifically asserted production of only 29–34 units for certain models and challenged the admissibility of such electronic material under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (or equivalent provisions under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam), pointing out lack of certification/affidavit. These contentions, raised in detailed post-hearing written submissions (particularly paras 16–17), found no engagement in the impugned order. The Court held that assertions and counter-assertions on the quantum of industrial application required adjudication on tangible, admissible evidence, which was absent here.
While noting the appellant's reliance on the Supreme Court's recent pronouncement in Cryogas Equipment (P) Ltd. vs. Inox India Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 780, para 66) — which clarified that an original artistic work does not lose copyright protection merely because a design derived from it is industrially applied — the High Court did not decide the merits. It clarified that no opinion was expressed on whether the works qualified as artistic works retaining copyright or whether the Section 15(2) bar applied, leaving these for fresh examination.
The Court accordingly quashed the impugned order, remitted the applications for de novo consideration by a different officer, directed that the appellant be permitted to rebut any documents relied upon by the respondents, allowed the respondents to file further materials in support of opposition, and explicitly required the Registrar to record a specific finding on whether opposition by the respondents could be maintained at the pre-registration stage. No costs were imposed.
This decision settles important points of law in copyright registration practice. It reinforces the strict separation between pre-grant inquiry/opposition under Section 45 read with Rule 70 (limited to "persons interested") and post-grant rectification/expungement under Section 50 (available to "persons aggrieved"). Conflating the two concepts is impermissible. It also establishes that any reliance on electronic or documentary evidence adverse to the applicant during inquiry must comply with natural justice — copies must be supplied and rebuttal opportunity afforded — failing which the order becomes unsustainable. Finally, it underscores that the Section 15(2) industrial application bar (loss of copyright after more than fifty reproductions without design registration) requires concrete, rebuttable evidence rather than untested website claims or media content, aligning with the Supreme Court's emphasis in Cryogas on preserving underlying artistic copyright despite industrial derivation.
**Case Details**
**Title**: Fornnax Technology Private Limited vs. The Registrar of Copyrights & Ors. (and connected matters)
**Date of Order**: February 11, 2026
**Case Number**: CA (COMM.IPD-CR) 5/2026, 6/2026, 7/2026 & 8/2026 (with connected I.As.)
**Neutral Citation**: Not available in the provided judgment text (awaiting publication)
**Name of Court**: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
**Name of Hon'ble Judge**: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
**Disclaimer**: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
**Written By**: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
**Suggested Titles for the Article**
1. Delhi High Court Remands Copyright Applications: Strict Adherence to Locus Standi and Natural Justice in Pre-Registration Oppositions
2. Fornnax Technology vs Registrar of Copyrights: High Court Quashes Rejection Order Over Procedural Lapses and Evidence Irregularities
3. Pre-Grant Opposition in Copyright Registration: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between "Person Interested" and "Person Aggrieved"
4. Section 15(2) Bar and Electronic Evidence: Delhi High Court Mandates Fair Opportunity in Copyright Registration Proceedings
**Suggested Tags**
Copyright Registration, Registrar of Copyrights, Section 45 Copyright Act, Section 50 Copyright Act, Section 15(2) Copyright Act, Rule 70 Copyright Rules 2013, Natural Justice in IP Proceedings, Person Interested vs Person Aggrieved, Industrial Application of Artistic Works, Delhi High Court IP Judgment, Fornnax Technology Copyright Case, Cryogas Equipment Precedent
**Headnote**
Delhi High Court sets aside Registrar of Copyrights' rejection of artistic work registration applications on grounds of improper conflation of "person interested" (pre-grant) with "person aggrieved" (post-grant), failure to address locus objections, and violation of natural justice by relying on unshared electronic evidence to invoke Section 15(2) bar; matter remanded for de novo consideration by different officer with directions to permit rebuttal and record finding on maintainability of opposition.
=====
In **Fornnax Technology Private Limited v. The Registrar of Copyrights & Ors.**, the appellant sought copyright registration under Section 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957 for artistic works comprising technical drawings/views of components (such as the "Cutting Chamber Part of Secondary Shredder R-4000 Front View") of its secondary shredder machines used in waste processing/recycling. The Registrar entertained oppositions from respondents (competitors), considered their documents including website PR articles claiming over 100 installations, YouTube/social media videos, and rejected the applications on February 28, 2026 (impugned common order), primarily invoking the Section 15(2) bar that copyright ceases after industrial application to more than fifty articles without design registration. Aggrieved, the appellant filed connected appeals under Section 72 before the Delhi High Court.
The Court, in its oral judgment dated February 11, 2026, quashed the impugned order and remanded the applications for de novo consideration by a different officer. It held that the Registrar failed to address the appellant's objection that respondents were not "persons interested" under Rule 70(9) & (10) of the Copyright Rules, 2013 (governing pre-registration inquiry/opposition) and wrongly equated them with "persons aggrieved" under Section 50 (post-registration rectification), conflating distinct statutory stages and allowing impermissible pre-grant participation by competitors. Further, the Registrar violated natural justice by relying on adverse electronic evidence (website claims, videos) without supplying copies to the appellant or granting opportunity to rebut, despite the appellant's assertions of limited production (29-34 units for certain models) and challenges to admissibility under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act/Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. The Court directed that the appellant be allowed to rebut documents, respondents to file further materials, and the Registrar to specifically find on maintainability of opposition, without expressing any view on merits including applicability of Section 15(2) or reliance on Cryogas Equipment (P) Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 780).
- Pre-registration inquiry under Section 45 read with Rule 70 of Copyright Rules, 2013 permits opposition only by "persons interested"; post-registration rectification/expungement under Section 50 is available to "persons aggrieved" — these are distinct stages and concepts that cannot be conflated or substituted (paras 4-7, 15).
- Registrar's failure to consider and decide specific objection on locus standi of opponents as "persons interested" vitiates the order (paras 5, 15).
- Reliance on adverse documentary/electronic evidence (including website content, videos) during inquiry without furnishing copies to applicant and affording effective rebuttal opportunity breaches principles of natural justice (paras 8-9, 16).
- Invocation of Section 15(2) bar requires adjudication on tangible, admissible evidence of industrial application exceeding 50 articles, not untested or unsubstantiated claims; underlying artistic copyright not lost merely by industrial derivation of design (paras 6, 16; reference to Cryogas Equipment (P) Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 780, para 66).
**Case Title**: Fornnax Technology Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Registrar of Copyrights
**Order Date**: February 11, 2026
**Case Number**: CA (COMM.IPD-CR) 5/2026, 6/2026, 7/2026 & 8/2026 (with connected I.As.)
**Neutral Citation**: Not available/published in provided sources (as per judgment text)
**Name of Court**: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
**Name of Judge**: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor
