Delhi High Court Cancels Copyright Registration of “ZOOOK” Label Due to Procedural Irregularities
In Fortune Marketing Private Limited Vs. Gujarat Pesticides & Ors., decided on 29 May 2026, bearing Case No. C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024, Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4850, the Delhi High Court, New Delhi, presided over by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh, allowed a petition seeking cancellation of copyright registration granted in respect of the artistic work titled “ZOOOK”.
The petitioner, proprietor of the well-known ZOOOK trademark and copyright registrations used since 2013, challenged the copyright registration obtained by Gujarat Pesticides for a packaging/label bearing the identical mark “ZOOOK”. The petitioner contended that the respondent had unsuccessfully attempted to secure trademark registrations and thereafter sought copyright protection for substantially the same label.
The Court observed that the Trade Marks Registry had earlier identified conflicting marks belonging to the petitioner but subsequently issued a Search Certificate incorrectly stating that no similar marks existed. The Court further held that the petitioner was a “person aggrieved” under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and should have been notified under Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013 before grant of the copyright registration.
Holding that the registration process suffered from procedural defects and that the Search Certificate was issued contrary to the Trade Marks Register, the Court cancelled Copyright Registration No. A-153061/2024 relating to the artistic work “ZOOOK”, set aside the Search Certificate dated 26 October 2023, and directed fresh consideration of the application after hearing both parties.
Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
====
Delhi High Court Revokes Copyright Registration of “ZOOOK” Label: Trademark Rights Cannot Be Circumvented Through Copyright Registration
Compliance with Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules and adherence to principles of procedural fairness are essential requirements when granting copyright registration
Introduction:
The judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court on 29 May 2026 in Fortune Marketing Private Limited v. Gujarat Pesticides & Ors. is an important decision at the intersection of trademark law and copyright law. The case highlights the safeguards built into the Copyright Act, 1957 to prevent parties from obtaining copyright registrations over artistic works that incorporate trademarks already belonging to others. The Court emphasized that copyright registration cannot be used as an indirect route to secure rights over a mark when trademark registration itself is disputed or opposed.
The decision is significant because it reinforces the legislative purpose behind Section 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and protects the integrity of both the Trade Marks Register and the Copyright Register. The Court also clarified the meaning of the expression “person aggrieved” under Section 50 of the Copyright Act and recognized the rights of trademark proprietors to challenge copyright registrations that adversely affect their trademark interests.
Factual and Procedural Background:
The petitioner, Fortune Marketing Private Limited, is the proprietor of the well-known mark “ZOOOK” and its variants. The company has been using the mark since 2013 in relation to electronic products and has secured several trademark registrations as well as copyright registrations in its logo and artistic works. According to the petitioner, the mark “ZOOOK” is a coined and distinctive expression that has acquired substantial goodwill and reputation through extensive sales, advertising campaigns, celebrity endorsements, sponsorship of sporting events, and continuous commercial use.
The dispute began when Gujarat Pesticides, the first respondent, filed a trademark application in 2019 for a mark incorporating the word “ZOOOK” in Class 1. The petitioner opposed the application. Subsequently, the respondent withdrew the application. However, shortly thereafter, the respondent filed fresh trademark applications for the word mark “ZOOOK” and a label mark containing the same expression. These applications were also opposed by the petitioner and remained pending before the Trade Marks Registry.
While these trademark disputes were continuing, the respondent secured copyright registration on 25 April 2024 for an artistic work and packaging label titled “ZOOOK” under Registration No. A-153061/2024. The petitioner discovered this registration and approached the Delhi High Court under Section 50 of the Copyright Act seeking cancellation of the copyright registration.
The petitioner argued that the respondent had failed to obtain trademark registration and was now attempting to achieve the same result through copyright registration. It was also alleged that the copyright registration was granted on the basis of an incorrect Search Certificate issued by the Trade Marks Registry and that the petitioner was never notified despite having a direct interest in the subject matter.
Dispute Before the Court:
The principal dispute before the Court was whether the copyright registration granted in favour of Gujarat Pesticides for the artistic work “ZOOOK” was valid.
The petitioner contended that it was the prior adopter, user, and registered proprietor of the ZOOOK mark. It argued that the respondent's artistic work substantially incorporated the petitioner’s registered trademark and that the copyright registration had been obtained despite pending trademark disputes and conflicting marks already existing on the Trade Marks Register.
The respondent, on the other hand, argued that copyright and trademark rights operate independently. According to the respondent, merely because the petitioner owned trademark rights in the word “ZOOOK” did not mean that the respondent could not obtain copyright registration for an original artistic work containing that word. The respondent further argued that the petitioner was not a “person aggrieved” under Section 50 of the Copyright Act and therefore had no right to seek cancellation of the registration.
The government authorities, namely the Registrar of Copyrights and the Registrar of Trade Marks, defended the issuance of the copyright registration and maintained that the Search Certificate had been properly issued.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:
The Court placed considerable emphasis on the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957.Under this provision, where an artistic work is capable of being used in relation to goods or services, the applicant must obtain a certificate from the Registrar of Trade Marks confirming that no identical or deceptively similar trademark has been registered or applied for by another person.
The Court explained that this requirement exists to prevent abuse of copyright registration and to ensure that individuals do not copy existing trademarks and then claim copyright protection over them.
In reaching its conclusion, the Court relied heavily upon the decision in Hugo Boss Trademark Management GmbH & Co. KG v. Sandeep Arora Trading as Arras The Boss and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7956. In that case, the Delhi High Court had observed that the purpose of Section 45 is to prevent unscrupulous parties from copying established trademarks and subsequently seeking protection through copyright registration. The Court noted that the legislature intentionally incorporated this safeguard because artistic works and label marks often overlap in commercial practice.
The Court also referred to Marico Ltd. v. Mrs. Jagjit Kaur, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8488, where the Delhi High Court recognized that although copyright law and trademark law are separate statutory regimes, conflicts may arise where artistic works are used as trademarks. The proviso to Section 45 was therefore enacted to address precisely such situations.
Applying these principles, the Court found serious procedural irregularities in the present matter. The evidence showed that when the respondent applied for the Search Certificate, the Examination-cum-Search Report dated 1 March 2023 had identified conflicting marks belonging to the petitioner. Despite this, a Search Certificate dated 26 October 2023 was subsequently issued stating that no similar marks existed.
The Court found this contradiction impossible to reconcile. According to the Court, once conflicting marks had already been identified, the subsequent issuance of a certificate certifying the absence of conflicting marks was clearly erroneous. This incorrect certificate became the foundation upon which the copyright registration was granted.
The Court observed that the registration process had effectively begun with an inaccurate premise and therefore the resulting copyright registration could not be sustained.
Another important issue concerned the meaning of “person aggrieved” under Section 50 of the Copyright Act. The Court rejected the respondent’s argument that the petitioner lacked standing. Since the petitioner was the registered proprietor and prior user of the ZOOOK mark and the impugned artistic work incorporated that very mark, the petitioner had a direct, substantial, and legitimate interest in the dispute. The Court therefore held that the petitioner clearly qualified as a person aggrieved.
The Court also found a violation of Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013. This rule requires notice to be given to persons having an interest in the subject matter of the copyright application. Since the respondent was fully aware of the ongoing trademark disputes and oppositions involving the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have been notified. Failure to provide such notice deprived the petitioner of an opportunity to contest the registration before it was granted.
Court observed that procedural fairness is an essential component of the registration process. When a party with a direct and obvious interest is denied participation, the resulting registration becomes vulnerable to challenge.
Final Decision of the Court:
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and revoked Copyright Registration No. A-153061/2024 relating to the artistic work and packaging label titled “ZOOOK”.
The Court also set aside the Search Certificate dated 26 October 2023 issued by the Trade Marks Registry.
The original copyright application filed by Gujarat Pesticides was revived for fresh consideration. The Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to reconsider the matter from the stage of the Examination-cum-Search Report dated 1 March 2023, issue a fresh Search Certificate after proper examination, and thereafter allow both parties an opportunity to file objections and make submissions before a final decision is taken. The entire exercise was directed to be completed within four months.
Importantly, the Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the ultimate merits of the respondent’s copyright claim and had confined itself to examining the procedural validity of the registration process.
Point of Law Settled:
The judgment establishes that copyright registration of an artistic work containing a trademark cannot be sustained if the mandatory safeguards under Section 45 of the Copyright Act are not properly followed.
The decision further clarifies that a registered trademark proprietor whose mark is incorporated into an impugned artistic work is a “person aggrieved” under Section 50 of the Copyright Act and is entitled to seek cancellation of the copyright registration.
The judgment also reinforces that an incorrect Search Certificate issued contrary to the Trade Marks Register can vitiate the entire copyright registration process. Compliance with Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules and adherence to principles of procedural fairness are essential requirements when granting copyright registration for artistic works connected with commercial goods and services.
Case Title: Fortune Marketing Private Limited Vs Gujarat Pesticides & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 29 May 2026
Case Number: C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4850
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh
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
Headnote
The Delhi High Court held that copyright registration of an artistic work incorporating a registered trademark cannot be sustained where the mandatory requirements of Section 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957 are violated. The Court ruled that a trademark proprietor is a “person aggrieved” under Section 50 and can seek cancellation of a copyright registration affecting its trademark rights. An incorrect Search Certificate issued contrary to the Trade Marks Register and failure to notify interested parties under Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013 render the copyright registration vulnerable to cancellation.
