Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 858
High Court of Delhi
REVA KHETRAPAL & PRATIBHA RANI, JJ.
Raj Kumar Saraf, Proprietor M/s. Bindal Food Products
Versus
M/s. Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamaria
RFA 86 of 2008
Decided on : 19-07-2013.
For the Appellant:S.K. Bansal, Ajay Amitabh Suman, Vikas Khera, Santosh Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:A.K. Behera, Advocate.
The main legal point established is that prior publication and false declaration of publication are crucial factors in copyright disputes.
Headnote:
Copyright Board - Rectification of Register - Copyright Act, 1957, Section 50 - Summary: The court upheld the Copyright Board's decision to cancel the registration of the Appellant's artistic work. The Respondent proved prior publication of their art work and the Appellant's false declaration of publication. The court rejected the Appellant's contentions and dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The Respondent filed a petition to rectify the Register of Copyrights by expunging the entry of the Appellant's artistic work. The Appellant claimed prior publication of their work and challenged the Respondent's standing as a person aggrieved.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Respondent was a person aggrieved and proved prior publication of their art work. The Appellant's claim of prior publication was false, and their contentions were rejected.
Issues: The issues included the standing of the Respondent, prior publication of the art work, and the validity of the Appellant's claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Respondent was a person aggrieved and proved prior publication of their art work. The Appellant's false declaration of publication and lack of evidence to substantiate their claims led to the dismissal of the appeal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Copyright Board's decision to cancel the registration of the Appellant's artistic work.
Reva Khetrapal, J.
1. By way of this appeal, the Appellant - Raj Kumar Saraf seeks to assail the order dated 19.9.2007 passed by the Copyright Board rectifying the Register of Copyrights by expunging the entry bearing No.A-66496/04 relating to the art work of the Appellant.
2. The facts leading to the passing of the impugned order by the Copyright Board may be briefly delineated as follows.
3. The Respondent - Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamaria had filed an application under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 before the Copyright Board for expunging/deleting the registration of the artistic work of the Appellant registered as Registration No.66496/04 dated 26.2.2004 from the Register of Copyright. As per the averments made in the rectification petition, the Respondent firm had been in the business of manufacturing and marketing of Pansarat and Ayurvedic medicines ever since the year 1958 and had been issued Ayurvedic Drug License way back in the year 1983 vide License No.174 (A & U) dated 19.1.1983. Besides, the Respondent had also applied for sales tax registration number for carrying on the aforesaid business in the territory of Delhi in the year 1979 and had been issued Sales Tax Registration No.LC/03/019829 dated 17.2.1979. The Respondent had earned tremendous goodwill in the market in relation to manufacturing and marketing of several Ayurvedic and Pansarat products including “Vijay Hingoli”. The Respondent was holding various registered trademarks and an application for registration of “Vijay Hingoli” was pending consideration before the Trademarks Registry. The said product, viz., “Vijay Hingoli” had been launched in 1981 and was being marketed in bottles and plastic packs ever since 1981 and from the year 1991 in pouches. The Respondent in paragraph 5 of the petition has set out its sales figures for the year 1994-95 till 2003-04 and submitted that ever since 1981 it had been marketing its product “Vijay Hingoli” using the artistic work and get up enclosed with the petition. During the course of marketing of the said product, the Respondent had issued several advertisements in newspapers, audio- video cassettes, magazines, glow signs, banners, advertisements on the body of DTC buses, wall painting and other ancillary modes of advertisements, portraying and advertising the said artistic work and get up, samples whereof were enclosed for the perusal of the Copyright Board. It was alleged that the Appellant – Shri Raj Kumar Saraf (the Respondent before the Copyright Board) was fully aware of the existence of the Respondent in the market in relation to the manufacturing and marketing of Pansarat and Ayurvedic products and specifically the product “Vijay Hingoli”. It was asserted that the father of the Respondent, namely, Shri Shiv Kumar Saraf is a blood relation/cousin of the members of the Respondent firm and hailed from the same village in the State of Rajasthan. The said Shri Raj Kumar Saraf surreptitiously and with malafide intention made an application before the Registrar of Copyrights on 26.7.2003 to register the aforementioned artistic work and get up in his name by making some cosmetic changes therein in relation to the same product titled “Vijay Hingoli”. In the said application, the Appellant represented before the Registrar of Copyrights that he had been using the said artistic work and get up as well as name since 1995. The Registrar accordingly issued registration No.A-66496/04 on 26.2.2004. The Respondent came to know about the fact through an advertisement given by the Appellant in a local newspaper, namely, Sandhya Times on 24.11.2004, thus compelling the Respondent to file the rectification petition before the Copyright Board.
4. The Copyright Board on consideration of the rival submissions of the parties and after appreciating the documents filed by both the parties passed the impugned order cancelling the registration of the Appellant by expunging the entry bearing No.A-66496/04 made in favour
