$~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 843/2022 M/S NEW BHARAT OVERSEAS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Neeraj Grover, Ms. Kashish Sethi, Advocates versus M/S BHAGWATI LACTO VEGETARIAN EXPORTS PVT LTD AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Galib Kabir and Mr. Sandeep Bisht, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Sumit Nagpal, SPC, Advocates for R-2 and R-3.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

O R D E R

% 08.09.2025

1. This Rectification Petition has been filed under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (‘Act of 1957’), against the registration of the impugned Copyright No. A-130837/2019 dated 06.09.2019 in respect of Artistic work “GARIMAA GOLD”, granted in favour of Respondent No. 1.

Submissions by Petitioner

2. Mr. Neeraj Grover, learned counsel for the Petitioner, states that the Petitioner is inter alia engaged in the business of processing, selling, marketing, and/or exporting of various kinds of ‘rice’ since 1978.

2.1 The Petitioner is the registered proprietor of the Trade Mark “TAJ MAHAL” under Trade Mark No. 338004, registered on 30.11.1981, and of the mark “TAJ MAHAL” with the device of the Taj Mahal under Trade Mark No. 387177, registered on 15.12.1989, both in Class 30.

2.2 The Petitioner also holds Copyright Registration for its artistic work of “TAJ MAHAL” bearing Copyright Registration No. A-50558/1990.

2.3 The Petitioner claims to be the original creator of the artistic work embodied in the device/packaging label titled “TAJ MAHAL”, which is depicted as follows:

2.4 The Petitioner’s grievance arises from the grant of copyright registration No. 130837/2019 dated 06.09.2019 in favour of Respondent No.

1 herein, which is depicted as below:

2.5 It is stated that Respondent No.1 deliberately started using a similar packaging comprising substantially the device “TAJ MAHAL” for selling an identical product ‘rice.’

2.6 It is stated that in view thereof, the Petitioner lodged a complaint with the Police, pursuant to which FIR No. 160 dated 11.08.2017 was registered against Respondent No. 1. During the investigation, products bearing the impugned artistic work/packaging labels were seized, and a charge-sheet dated 09.09.2019 was filed against the Respondent No. 1.

2.7 Subsequently, another FIR, being FIR No. 11/54/2019 dated 28.03.2019, was also registered against Respondent No. 1 arising from continued misuse of the impugned artistic work.

2.8 However, in October 2019, Respondent No.1 instituted a Quashing petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, seeking the quashing of the FIR No. 160/2017; and it was in the course of said proceedings that the Petitioner first became aware of the fact that Respondent No.1 had obtained the impugned copyright registration bearing No. A-130837/2019.

2.9 It is stated that Respondent No.1 has surreptitiously obtained the impugned copyright registration without issuing any notice of his application dated 25.06.2019 to the Petitioner herein. It is pointed out that the application sought registration of the very same label in respect of which the FIR Nos. 160/2017 and 11/54/2019 had already been lodged, thereby directly affecting the Petitioner’s rights and interests.

2.10 He states that the captioned petition contains several averments as to ownership and originality of the artistic labels; however, the principal issue at hand that needs to be addressed, and considered by the Court, pertains to the sustainability of the impugned registration in violation of Rule 70(9) of Copyright Rules, 2013. He states that the core question before this Court is whether Respondent No.1 fulfilled the statutory requirement of furnishing notice to the Petitioner herein when seeking registration. The relevant statutory provision has been extracted as under:

“Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013

70. Application for Registration of Copyright.

........

(9) The person applying for registration shall give notice of his application to every person who claims or has any interest in the sub