Copyright registration lacks originality if it constitutes imitation of an existing work and violates prior rights.

(Judgment of the Court was made by P.Velmurugan J.)

This appeal is filed against the order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the learned single Judge in (T)OP(CR)No.1 of 2024.

2. The appellant filed the petition in (T)OP(CR)No.1 of 2024 under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 before the learned single Judge praying (a) to suspend the impugned copyright registration No.A-85790/2009 of the first respondent from the Copyright Register and (b) to expunge the impugned copyright registration No.A-85790/2009 of the first respondent from the Copyright Register stating that the appellant, being a company incorporated in 1988 under the Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of well-known consumer products viz., PARACHUTE, PARACHUTE ADVANSED JASMINE, Marico's HAIR & CARE, NIHAR, SAFFOLA, MEDIKER, LIVON, REVIVE, SILK-N-SHINE and SET WET and has filed the petition seeking removal or rectification of Copyright Registration No.A-85790/2009 dated 01.06.2009 granted in favour of the first respondent in respect of the artistic work used on the packaging of EVEREST COCONUT OIL. It was also stated that the impugned registration has been wrongly granted and is fraudulently remaining on the Register of Copyrights, as the first respondent’s label is a substantial, colourable imitation and copy of the appellant’s prior copyrighted and trade marked PARACHUTE label, which features the distinctive Flag Device, the Broken Coconut Device, the unique blue and green colour combination and the overall layout and trade dress that have become exclusively associated with the appellant. The appellant holds prior copyright registration No.A-64997/2003 and multiple trade mark registrations, including Nos.737893, 737894, 1033842, and 1033844, all of which predate the first respondent’s registration and the same have been used extensively and continuously since 1948 by the appellant and its predecessors, Bombay Oil Industries Limited. However, the first respondent, by concealing the material facts and by misrepresenting the originality of his work, obtained registration in violation of Section 45(1) of the Copyright Act and failed to disclose the existence of the appellant’s prior trade mark registrations for deceptively similar artistic works. The first respondent’s conduct amounts to copyright infringement, passing off, and unfair competition, as the impugned label replicates the essential features of the PARACHUTE label and deceives the public into believing that the first respondent’s product originate from or is associated with the appellant. It was further stated that the first respondent has a history of infringing behaviour, having previously copied the PARACHUTE trade dress in 2002 under the mark SHRI LAXMI, and despite cease & desist notices and court proceedings, has continued to engage in unlawful imitation.

The impugned registration violates the principles of equity, fair play and justice and undermines the legislative intent of protecting only original artistic works under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act. Since the first respondent’s work is a pirated reproduction and not an original creation, the impugned registration has been entered in the Copyright Register without sufficient cause and wrongly remains on record. Therefore, the appellant prayed to suspend and expunge the impugned Copyright Registration No.A-85790/2009 from the Register, as stated above.

3. Though the first respondent did not appear and remained ex parte, the learned single Judge dismissed the petition filed by the appellant holding that the first respondent’s trade dress is clearly distinguishable from that of the appellant and that the appellant has not produced supporting materials to establish infringement by the first respondent, by the impugned order.

Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before us.

4. The learned Senior Counsel a