Back
Dismisses Japan Tobacco's for CAMEL COLLECTION Artistic Work
The has dismissed a petition by seeking the removal of a 1997 copyright registration for the artistic work “CAMEL” and “CAMEL COLLECTION,” owned by garment company . The ruling clarifies a pivotal point in Indian copyright law: a or claim of , by itself, is insufficient to establish . The court emphasised that the to prove they are the “” of the under .
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, who presided over the matter, rejected Japan Tobacco's argument that its long-standing trademark use of the CAMEL brand for cigarettes and apparel entitled it to copyright protection over the disputed label. The judgment holds significance for IP practitioners, as it distinguishes between the protection afforded by trademark law and the independent requirement of proving originality and first ownership in copyright.
Background of the Dispute
, the manufacturer of CAMEL cigarettes, along with its US affiliate —which manages the CAMEL brand on clothing, bags, and footwear—filed the petition under , seeking . The company claimed that the artistic work “CAMEL” and “CAMEL COLLECTION” had been used by the corporate group since for cigarettes and since the late 1970s for garments. They alleged that and Mrs. Veena R. Hinduja, who applied for the copyright registration in 1997, simply lifted these existing artworks and superimposed one over the other.
The registration in question was granted on , with the label claimed to have been first published in . Japan Tobacco tied this chronology to a licence that Worldwide Brands granted to Germany's , allowing it to manufacture CAMEL clothing and outsource production. In , Dornbusch outsourced garment manufacturing to , a sister concern of . Since Mrs. Hinduja was also a director and shareholder in Gokaldas, Japan Tobacco argued that she must have known of the original CAMEL marks and copied them.
No Proof of First Ownership
The court examined the core legal question: who first created the artistic work? Under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, the “” of copyright is the author of the work, unless the work is made in the course of employment or under a contract of service. Justice Gedela observed that “an individual or an entity claiming copyrights in an '' has to necessarily establish the fact of being the '' in such copyright.” The court unequivocally stated that a “by itself would not be sufficient to establish the owner of the trademark as the '' of the copyrights in the artistic work embodied therein. Section 17 of the Act, does not postulate any .”
Japan Tobacco's only evidence of how the CAMEL artwork originated was a set of books on CAMEL cigarette history. However, these documents were never properly proved in court. had denied the documents by an affidavit dated , and Japan Tobacco failed to adduce evidence in accordance with the . “Save and except for the aforesaid books, there is to establish any of the said averments,” the court noted.
but Not Decisive
The court accepted Japan Tobacco's legal argument that the (published on ) permits of copyrights, subject to the provisions of the Act. This means a work first published abroad can be protected in India. However, the court clarified that “whether the artistic work claimed, is in fact an entitled to be vested with copyright, is altogether a different matter.” The petitioner still had to prove that its work is original and that it is the —a requirement not satisfied by mere trademark use or foreign registrations.
Not Clear Enough
Japan Tobacco also relied on what it termed by in a connected trademark suit, Japan Tobacco vs. D. Jhamnadas (2018). In that suit, had stated that it exported garments to Dornbusch, the licensee of Japan Tobacco, and had used “CAMEL” with the camel device since . The court agreed these “appear to be ” but held they were “.” had also claimed it was making CAMEL garments under its own label since , with Japan Tobacco's knowledge. The court noted that the earlier suit concerned trademark infringement, where the applies strictly, and not copyright.
At best, the court said, the statements allowed “only an inferential analysis” that did not establish Japan Tobacco's own first ownership of the artistic work.
Procedural Arguments Rejected
Japan Tobacco further argued that had not complied with the mandatory steps under and . The court dismissed these arguments as “academic” and “unpersuasive,” given its finding that Japan Tobacco had failed to make out a case for rectification. The judgment refrained from examining the various authorities cited by either side on procedural requirements.
Implications for IP Practice
The ruling is a reminder that copyright and trademark are distinct regimes with different requirements for protection. Trademark law protects signs that distinguish goods or services, while copyright protects original expressions fixed in a tangible medium. Merely owning a trademark—even a well-known one like CAMEL—does not confer copyright in the underlying artistic work unless the claimant can prove authorship and first ownership under Section 17.
For IP litigators, the case underscores the importance of adducing documentary evidence of creation, such as design notes, dated sketches, or publication records. Reliance on historical books or broad trademark usage will not suffice if the other side denies the documents and the evidence is not formally proved. The court's strict application of the Evidence Act to copyright rectification petitions signals that claimants must meet the same evidentiary standards as in any civil proceeding.
Conclusion
“The petitioner has been unable to persuade this Court for rectification of the Register of Copyrights by expunging or removing the impugned copyright registration of respondent no.1. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed,” the court ordered. The decision leaves 's copyright registration intact, and Japan Tobacco's attempts to invalidate it based on trademark priority have failed. As copyright and trademark law continue to intersect in brand enforcement strategies, this judgment provides clear guidance: without proof of original creation, a trademark owner cannot override a registered copyright.
