Copyright shall cease to exist under the Copyright Act for any design registered under the Designs Act, preventing simultaneous protection under both statutes.

ORDER :

1. The first respondent applied for registration of copyright for an artistic work titled “ARTISTIC WORK PHOTOGRAPH OF PUMP ASSEMBLY FOR AIR COMPRESSOR” on 02.05.2023. The said artistic work was registered under Registration No.A-146894/2023. By this petition, the petitioners seek rectification/expunging the registration of the said work from the Register of Copyrights.

Counsel and their contentions

2. Mr.Ramesh Ganapathy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the register of copyrights is liable to be rectified insofar as it relates to the copyright of the first respondent in view of Section 15 (1) of the COPYRIGHT ACT , 1957 (' COPYRIGHT ACT '). In this connection, he refers to the certificate of registration dated 09.07.2020 in respect of Design No.325033-01, with effect from 26.12.2019.

3. By comparing the image of the article in respect of which the design registration was granted with the work in respect of which the copyright registration was granted, learned counsel submits that the common article in both cases is the Pump Assembly for Air Compressor. By referring to the relevant dates, learned counsel emphasizes that the design registration was obtained with effect from 26.12.2019 whereas the copyright registration was obtained subsequently with effect from 02.05.2023. According to learned counsel, Section 15 (1) of the COPYRIGHT ACT is intended to ensure that copyright shall not subsist under the COPYRIGHT ACT in respect of any design which is registered under the DESIGNS ACT , 2000 (' DESIGNS ACT '). Learned counsel next referred to the examination report of the Copyright Office dated 08.06.2023, wherein the same objection was raised by the Copyright Office by pointing out that the work cannot be registered as per Section 15 as it is already registered under the DESIGNS ACT . He also referred to the first respondent's reply dated 06.07.2023 to the Examination Report and pointed out that the first respondent misconstrued Section 15 (1) in the said reply. He further submitted that the first respondent also applied for and obtained a patent in respect of the same article.

4. In support of the contention that copyright shall cease to subsist in this situation, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Kiran Shoes Manufacturers v. Registrar of Copyrights and another , 2012 (129) DRJ 105 (DB) ('Kiran Shoes Manufacturers'), particularly paragraph 11 thereof. After pointing out that the Division Bench had followed an earlier judgment in the case of Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. and another, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1647 ('Microfibres'), learned counsel referred to the said earlier judgment. By drawing specific reference to paragraphs 29 to 32 and 46 thereof, learned counsel submitted that the interplay between the COPYRIGHT ACT and the DESIGNS ACT was analyzed therein and that the Court concluded that once the design is created and registered under the DESIGNS ACT , whether or not the design is exploited on a commercial scale, the design loses its protection as an artistic work under the COPYRIGHT ACT .

5. By applying the said principle to the case at hand, learned counsel contends that the first respondent applied for and obtained registration of the design for the Pump Assembly for Air Compressor with effect from 26.12.2019. Consequently, by virtue of Section 15 (1) of the COPYRIGHT ACT , he contends that the copyright in the work shall cease to subsist. He next placed on record, the recent judgment of the Hon'ble supreme Court in Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited and Others , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 780 ('Cryogas Equipment'), p