Case Title: R.C. Plasto Tanks and Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ganesh Gouri Industries & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-CR) 868/2022 & I.As. 16726-16728/2022
Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:—
Date of Decision: 20th February, 2023
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Hon’ble Judge: Justice Sanjeev Narula
---
Factual Background
The petitioner, R.C. Plasto Tanks and Pipes Pvt. Ltd., is a well-known manufacturer and supplier of water storage tanks, PVC pipes, and fittings under its registered trademark “PLASTO.” The company also holds artistic copyright registrations for its labels and designs. The respondent, Ganesh Gouri Industries, is engaged in a similar line of business involving water storage tanks and allied goods.
The dispute traces back to the year 2018 when the petitioner discovered that the respondent was selling water tanks under the mark “AQUA PLAST” accompanied by the tagline “NAAM HI GUARANTEE HAI.” The petitioner alleged that this mark and slogan were deceptively similar to its own registered mark “PLASTO” and its slogan “PLASTO HAI TO GUARANTEE HAI.” According to the petitioner, this amounted to infringement of trademark and copyright, as well as passing off.
This dispute initially led to a civil suit being filed by R.C. Plasto before the District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, registered as Suit No. 3 of 2018. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which was recorded in the judgment dated 21st February 2019. The settlement was based on express undertakings and terms that became central to the present rectification petition.
Under the settlement, the respondent agreed not to use the mark “PLASTO” or any identical or deceptively similar mark, tagline, or trade dress. Specifically, the respondent undertook not to use the slogans “PLASTO HAI TO GUARANTEE HAI” or “NAAM HI GUARANTEE HAI,” and agreed to remove all infringing material from its products and marketing items. In return, the petitioner agreed not to object to any mark or logo of the respondent that included the word “PLAST,” provided it was not deceptively similar to the petitioner’s marks. Both parties thus agreed to maintain distinct trade identities.
However, in 2022, the petitioner discovered that the respondent had obtained copyright registration No. A-142047/2022 for an artistic label titled “Gauri Aqua Plast”. The petitioner alleged that this label used a blue background and white lettering similar to its own “PLASTO” logo and colour scheme. Viewing this as a breach of the earlier settlement and an act of copying, the petitioner filed the present petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 seeking removal of the impugned copyright from the Register of Copyrights.
---
Procedural History
The rectification petition was filed before the Delhi High Court’s Intellectual Property Division (IPD) under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The respondent’s reply to the petition was delayed by 33 days, which was condoned by the Court upon sufficient cause being shown.
The petitioner’s argument primarily rested on three pillars: that the impugned registration was (i) in violation of the 2019 settlement terms, (ii) deceptively similar to the petitioner’s copyrighted artistic label, and (iii) dishonest and mala fide in nature. The respondent opposed the petition, arguing that its artwork was original, distinct, and in compliance with the settlement terms, and that the petitioner’s claim amounted to monopolizing generic elements such as colours and shapes.
---
Core Dispute
The legal question before the Court was whether the respondent’s copyright registration for the label “Gauri Aqua Plast” was liable to be cancelled under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, on the grounds that it was not original and constituted a substantial reproduction or colourable imitation of the petitioner’s artistic work.
The case also tested the limits of contractual undertakings in prior settlements and whether the use of common design elements like colour combinations and word stems (like “PLAST”) could amount to infringement or breach of settlement.
---
Arguments of the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, contended that the respondent’s impugned copyright was a clear violation of the 2019 settlement terms. It was argued that the respondent had expressly undertaken not to use any mark or slogan similar to “PLASTO HAI TO GUARANTEE HAI” or to imitate the petitioner’s blue-and-white colour scheme.
The petitioner argued that the impugned artwork “Gauri Aqua Plast” was substantially similar to its own “PLASTO” label, both in visual presentation and conceptual impression. The label used a blue background and white lettering identical to that of the petitioner, thereby creating confusion among consumers.
It was also submitted that the petitioner’s goodwill and reputation, developed over decades, were being unfairly exploited by the respondent. According to the petitioner, the adoption of the impugned label was not independent or bona fide but an act of bad faith aimed at riding on the petitioner’s established reputation.
The petitioner relied on Section 13(1)(a) and Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, arguing that since originality is a prerequisite for copyright registration, any registration obtained through imitation or copying is liable to be cancelled. The petitioner further pointed out that the Delhi District Commercial Court, in CS (COMM) 545/2021, had already granted an injunction restraining the respondent from using similar trade dress and label, indicating prima facie infringement.
---
Arguments of the Respondent
The respondent, represented by Advocate Salim A. Inamdar, opposed the petition by asserting that its artwork was independently created and bore no resemblance to the petitioner’s label. It was argued that the petitioner was attempting to monopolize generic and functional elements such as the colour blue or the shape of the label, which are common in the plastic products industry.
The respondent emphasized that under the 2019 settlement, the petitioner had agreed not to object to the respondent’s use or registration of any mark that included the word “PLAST,” provided it was not deceptively similar. The respondent’s new label, it was argued, fully complied with this term as it used “Aqua Plast” with distinctive design features.
The impugned label contained a stylized “G” representing the company’s name “Gouri,” designed in the form of an “OK” hand gesture enclosing three waves, symbolizing water — a feature completely absent from the petitioner’s label. The respondent further pointed out that it used the tagline “NAAM HI KAAFI HAI” instead of “NAAM HI GUARANTEE HAI,” which indicated creativity rather than imitation.
Lastly, the respondent argued that copyright protection does not extend to ideas, colours, or common expressions but only to the original artistic arrangement. Hence, similarity in broad elements such as colour or shape could not justify cancellation of registration.
---
Judicial Reasoning and Analysis
Justice Sanjeev Narula commenced the analysis by examining the scope of Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which allows the High Court to order rectification of the Register of Copyrights if a registration has been “wrongly made” or if any entry has been made or remains on the Register “without sufficient cause.” The Court noted that to justify removal, the petitioner must establish either lack of originality in the respondent’s work or substantial reproduction of the petitioner’s existing copyrighted work.
The Court compared both the labels in question and observed that while both used the word “PLAST” and had blue and white colours, the overall artistic impression was different. The respondent’s label had distinct visual elements such as the stylized letter “G,” additional taglines, and differentiated fonts. The composition, artistic layout, and design collectively rendered it an original work capable of copyright protection.
The Court emphasized that copyright law protects expression and not mere ideas or functional aspects. A blue-and-white colour scheme or a rectangular label are common features in packaging and cannot form the exclusive property of one entity. Referring to the settled principle laid down in R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films (AIR 1978 SC 1613), the Court reiterated that where the expression of ideas is substantially different, no case of infringement or copying arises.
Justice Narula also relied on the petitioner’s own settlement terms to underscore that the petitioner had explicitly agreed not to object to the respondent’s use of “Aqua Plast” so long as it was not deceptively similar. Since the impugned label bore clear differences in artistic features, font styles, and slogans, it did not violate the settlement agreement. The use of the word “PLAST” was held to be generic, derived from the word “plastic,” and not exclusively associated with the petitioner.
The Court concluded that the petitioner’s claim was primarily based on broad similarities that could not satisfy the legal test of substantial reproduction under copyright law. The mere use of the same colour background and general layout was insufficient to prove copying or breach of settlement.
---
Final Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, holding that no ground was made out for removal of the impugned copyright under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Court observed that the respondent’s label was original and did not constitute a reproduction of the petitioner’s copyrighted work.
Justice Sanjeev Narula further held that the terms of the prior settlement had not been violated and that the petitioner was attempting to overextend its exclusive rights beyond reasonable limits. The Court imposed costs of ₹10,000 on the petitioner, payable to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority, and dismissed all pending applications.
---
Significance and Legal Insight
This case is significant as it clarifies the distinction between artistic similarity and copyright infringement in label design disputes. It reinforces the principle that copyright does not protect common design elements or colour combinations used widely across an industry. Moreover, it highlights the importance of honouring settlement terms and restricting legal action to clear cases of deception or bad faith.
The judgment also serves as a practical lesson for intellectual property owners: once a settlement allows limited use of certain terms or design elements, they cannot later object to such use merely on the basis of stylistic similarities.
---
Suggested Titles for Publication
1. Colour, Shape, and Settlement: Delhi High Court on the Limits of Copyright Protection
2. When Blue is Just a Colour: RC Plasto v. Ganesh Gouri and the Meaning of Originality
3. Copyright, Contract, and Commonality: A Study in Industrial Label Disputes
4. The Fine Line Between Inspiration and Infringement: Lessons from RC Plasto Case
5. Generic Words and Common Colours: Delhi High Court Redefines Copyright Boundaries in Label Art
---
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
