IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Marico Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Mrs. Jagit Kaur – Respondent
RFA No. 17 of 2009
Decided On : 20-04-2018
Copyright - Rectification of Register - Copyright Act, 1957, Section 50
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant sought rectification of the impugned entry in the Register of Copyrights for the label 'NIHAL UTTAM' under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Appellant claimed that the Respondent's label was a substantial reproduction and a colorable imitation of the Appellant's 'NIHAR COCONUT OIL'. The Rectification petition was dismissed by the Copyright Board, and the present appeal assails the said order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Respondent's label was not an original work but an imitation of the Appellant's label, and the rejection of the rectification application by the Copyright Board was contrary to law. The Court also noted the dishonest conduct of the Respondent in attempting to imitate various marks and labels of the Appellant.
Issues: The issues involved the originality of the Respondent's label, comparison of the artistic works, and the rejection of the rectification application by the Copyright Board.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Respondent's label was a substantial reproduction and a colorable imitation of the Appellant's label, and the rejection of the rectification application by the Copyright Board was contrary to law. The Court also emphasized that the comparison of the artistic works was the key factor in the decision.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the Copyright Board's judgment, cancelled/rectified the Copyright registration for the artistic work 'NIHAL UTTAM', and directed its removal from the Register of Copyrights.
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. Before the Copyright Board, an application was preferred under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 by Hindustan Unilever Limited, the predecessor of Marico Ltd., Appellant herein, (hereinafter ‘Appellant’) against one M/s. J.K. Enterprises (proprietary concern of Mrs. Jagjit Kaur) (hereinafter, ‘Respondent’). The Appellant sought rectification of the impugned entry in the Register of Copyrights bearing no. A-64850/2003 dated 25th July, 2003, which is an artistic work for the label “NIHAL UTTAM”. The Appellant claims to be the successor-in-interest of Tata Oil Mill Company Ltd. (hereinafter, ‘TOMCO’) which had coined the brand name ‘TATA NIHAR’. In 1994, the brand was amended to ‘NIHAR’ and was used in respect of hair oil, coconut oil, cosmetics, perfumes, etc. The earliest trade mark registration of the word “NIHAR” dated back to 24th October, 1994 and has since been registered in India and in several other countries including Qatar, Kuwait, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Nepal, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Mauritius and others.
2. It is the case of the Appellant that the trade mark NIHAR has been in use for several years in respect of coconut oil and the label that has been used, has the primary colour scheme of green, yellow and white with the representation of two coconut trees. Over the years though, the labels themselves have been amended, the fundamental get up and colour scheme continued to remain the same. The Appellant came across the Respondent's copyright registration bearing No A-64850/2003. The Appellant’s contention was that the Respondent registered the impugned copyright as an ‘artistic work’ under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, in the year 2003. The registration issued to the Respondent dated 25th July, 2003 claimed the first publication to be of 2002. Accordingly, a Rectification Petition came to be filed before the Copyright Board, seeking rectification/removal of the Respondent's registration from the Register of Copyrights. Before the Board, the Appellant was substituted as Petitioner in the petition after assignment of relevant rights from Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Accordingly, the Appellant herein would be deemed to include the present Appellant or its predecessor. The Rectification petition was dismissed on 21st September 2008 and the present appeal assails the said order. On the last date, counsel appearing for the Respondent had sought discharge after giving notice to the Respondents. Counsel was accordingly discharged and the matter was adjourned. None appears for the Respondent and is therefore proceeded exparte. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant have been heard.
3. A perusal of the Respondent’s impugned copyright registration and the Appellant’s labels show that there are several similarities between the same. The comparison of the works of the Appellant and the Respondent are set out below:
| (APPELLANT’S LABEL) |
| NIHAR |
| (RESPONDENT’S LABEL) |
| NIHAL UTTAM COCONUT OIL 100% PURE NATURAL |
4. A perusal of the labels which are extracted above clearly shows that the Respondent’s artistic work “NIHAL UTTAM” is clearly not an original work but an imitation of the Appellant’s label. The Respondent's label is a substantial reproduction and a colourable imitation of the Appellant’s “NIHAR COCONUT OIL”. The Appellant is thus a person aggrieved and is entitled to maintain the petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act 1957. The said provision reads as under:
“50. Rectification of Register by Appellate Board.- The Appellate Board on application of the registrar of Copyrights or of any person aggrieved, shall order the rectification of the Register of Copyrights by-
(a) the making of any wrongly omitted to the register, or
(b) the expunging of any entry wrongly made in, or remaining on, the register, or
(c) the correction of any error or defect in the r
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.