Delhi High Court Cancels Copyright Registration Under Section 50 for Substantial Imitation of Artistic Work

In a significant ruling for intellectual property rights, the High Court of Delhi has ordered the removal of a copyright registration from the Register of Copyrights, declaring it a “substantial imitation” of an existing artistic work. The case, involving competing entities in the edible oil sector, underscores the court's commitment to protecting original artistic works from unauthorized and deceptive reproduction.

A Recipe for Legal Conflict

The dispute arose between Rajani Products, a firm known for its "SWASTIK" line of edible oils since 1975, and Madhukar Varandani, operating M/s NaturalIndia Oils and Proteins. Rajani Products sought the cancellation of a copyright registration (No. A-128046/2019) held by the respondents, which featured the "NIOP NIWAI" brand alongside a SWASTIK device.

The petitioner argued that its proprietary SWASTIK label, backed by long-standing registration and market reputation, was being deceptively imitated. The conflict reached the court’s doors after the petitioner discovered the registration during unrelated commercial litigation, prompting an application under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Arguments and Judicial Silence

While the petitioner meticulously laid out the history of its artistic works—citing its ownership and the substantial goodwill associated with the SWASTIK label—the respondents failed to file a reply despite multiple opportunities granted by the court. Consequently, the court closed the respondents’ right to file a reply and proceeded to review the uncontroverted pleadings.

The petitioner’s counsel contended that the impugned artistic work was a "slavish copy," noting that the placement of objects, colour scheme, and overall artistic features were identical to those protected under the petitioner’s earlier copyright registrations.

Probing the Limits of Originality

Justice Tejas Karia, presiding over the matter, relied on the legal standard for determining similarity in artistic works. Referring to the precedent set in Marico Ltd. v. Jagit Kaur , the court emphasized that when evaluating whether a copyright constitutes a "colorful imitation," the court must look at the "broad features" of the work rather than conducting a microscopic side-by-side comparison.

“The broad and essential features of the two are to be considered. It would be enough if the impugned mark bears such an overall similarity to the registered mark as would be likely to mislead a person usually dealing with one, to accept the other if offered to him,” the Court reaffirmed, citing the Supreme Court’s test in Parle Products P. Ltd. v. J.P. & Co.

Key Observations

The judgment highlighted several pivotal findings regarding the necessity of originality in copyright law:

• On the petitioner's standing: "The Petitioner and Respondent No.1 are operating in the same trade... the Petitioner is a person aggrieved as the usage of the Impugned Artistic Work would dilute the Petitioner’s goodwill."
• On substantial similarity: "The similar background colour scheme... in addition to the placement of the objects such as the SWASTIK device... suggest that the Impugned Artistic Work is a substantial imitation / reproduction of the Petitioner’s Artistic Works."
• On the threshold of protection: "It is well-settled in law that Copyright protection is granted to an artistic work under the Act, only if the said work meets the threshold of originality."

The Verdict: Rectifying the Register

Finding that the impugned work lacked the requisite originality and served to dilute the petitioner's established trademark, the Court decisively allowed the petition. It ordered the cancellation of Copyright Registration No. A-128046/2019 and directed the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks of India to remove the entry from its register.

This ruling serves as a stern reminder to market participants that the unauthorized replication of branding elements under the guise of an independent copyright registration will not stand up to judicial scrutiny, reinforcing the protection provided to original creators in the marketplace.