Introduction
The Calcutta High Court has clarified the mandatory obligations of both the person applying for copyright and the Registrar of Copyrights. The decision protects the interests of existing copyright holders and ensures transparency and fairness in the registration process under the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Copyright Rules, 2013.
Factual And Procedural Background
Rajkumar Aggarwal, proprietor of Petro Product, had obtained copyright registration for his artistic work as far back as 2009. In the year 2022, Nand Kishore Bhimsariya applied for registration of copyright for a similar artistic work. The Registrar of Copyrights granted the registration to Bhimsariya.
Feeling that his prior rights were being affected and that proper procedure was not followed, Aggarwal filed a rectification application.
Timeline Of Events
| Year | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009 | Rajkumar Aggarwal obtained copyright registration for his artistic work. |
| 2022 | Nand Kishore Bhimsariya applied for registration of copyright for a similar artistic work. |
| 2022 | The Registrar of Copyrights granted registration to Bhimsariya. |
| Subsequently | Aggarwal filed a rectification application challenging the registration. |
Dispute
The main dispute centred on whether the copyright registration granted in favour of Nand Kishore Bhimsariya was valid.
Contention Of Parties
Arguments By Rajkumar Aggarwal
Rajkumar Aggarwal argued that Bhimsariya was fully aware of his earlier 2009 copyright registration, yet he did not give him any notice of the new application as required by law. Because of this, Aggarwal could not file objections within the 30-day period.
He further contended that the registrar failed to properly examine the application and overlooked the existing registration.
- Bhimsariya allegedly knew about the prior copyright registration.
- No notice was served to the earlier copyright holder.
- Aggarwal was deprived of the opportunity to object within 30 days.
- The Registrar allegedly failed to conduct proper scrutiny.
Stand Of The Registrar Of Copyrights
The Registrar of Copyrights maintained that once no objection was received within thirty days, it was bound to grant the registration.
Appearance Of Bhimsariya
Bhimsariya did not appear before the court despite notice.
Key Legal Issues
- Whether prior copyright holders must be notified before granting registration for a similar artistic work.
- Whether the Registrar of Copyrights is required to independently examine existing registrations.
- Whether failure to provide notice affects the validity of copyright registration.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces the principle that copyright registration procedures must be transparent, fair, and compliant with statutory requirements. It also highlights the responsibility of both applicants and the Registrar of Copyrights to ensure that existing copyright rights are not ignored during the registration process.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The Court analysed the relevant provisions of the Copyright Rules, 2013, in detail. The Court pointed out that Rule 70(6) and Rule 70(9) impose mandatory requirements on the applicant. Under Rule 70(9), the person applying for registration must give notice of his application to every person who claims any interest in the subject matter of the copyright or disputes the rights of the applicant.
The Court explained that this notice requirement is crucial because it gives the affected party a real opportunity to object within thirty days.
The Court further examined Rule 70(10) and Rule 70(11). Even if no objection is received, the registrar must be satisfied about the correctness of the particulars given in the application. This satisfaction is an independent duty. If needed, the registrar can hold an inquiry. In this case, the Registrar did not check the existing records and therefore failed to notice the petitioner’s prior registration.
Mandatory Provisions Under the Copyright Rules, 2013
| Rule | Legal Requirement | Importance Highlighted by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 70(6) | Mandatory compliance by the applicant | Procedural compliance is compulsory |
| Rule 70(9) | Notice must be given to interested parties | Ensures a fair opportunity to object |
| Rule 70(10) | The registrar must verify application particulars | The registrar has an independent duty of satisfaction |
| Rule 70(11) | The registrar may hold an inquiry if required | Protects the integrity of the registration process |
The Court emphasised that these rules have the force of law. The Court relied upon the Supreme Court judgement in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala Vs Mandal Singh & Ors, reported in 2011 (11) SCC 702, which held that rules framed under a statute carry a “statutory flavour” and are binding on all.
Important Legal Principles Applied by the Court
The judge also applied the well-settled principle from the Privy Council case Nazir Ahmed versus Emperor, reported as 1936 Privy Council 253. This principle, followed by the Supreme Court in Ramchandra Keshav Adke & Ors. vs. Govind Joti Chavare & Ors., reported in 1975 (1) SCC 559, states that if a statute or rule requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all.
The court held that non-compliance with the notice requirement under Rule 70(9) by the applicant and the failure of the Registrar to exercise due satisfaction under Rules 70(10) and 70(11) constituted a serious procedural irregularity that went to the root of the registration.
- Notice to affected parties is mandatory.
- The Registrar must independently verify the correctness of the application.
- Procedural safeguards under the Copyright Rules, 2013, cannot be ignored.
- Failure to comply with statutory procedures can invalidate a copyright registration.
The Court noted that the respondent himself had admitted in his written reply that there was an error on the part of the Registrar in not putting the petitioner on notice. This admission further strengthened the petitioner’s case.
The Court described the procedural lapses as creating a jurisdictional error that made the registration unsustainable.
Final Decision of the Court and Point of Law Settled
The Calcutta High Court allowed the rectification application. It set aside the copyright registration granted to Nand Kishore Bhimsariya, directed the Registrar to remove the particulars from the register and database, and rejected the original application for registration.
However, the Court granted liberty to Bhimsariya to file a fresh application after complying with all statutory requirements.
Key Point of Law Settled
This judgement settles an important point of law: strict compliance with the notice requirement under Rule 70(9) and the Registrar’s independent duty of satisfaction under Rules 70(10) and 70(11) of the Copyright Rules, 2013, are mandatory.
Failure to observe these provisions can result in the cancellation of the copyright registration. The ruling reinforces that procedural safeguards are essential to protect prior rights holders and maintain the credibility of the copyright registration system.
Case Details
| Case Title | Rajkumar Aggarwal, Proprietor of Petro Product Vs Nand Kishore Bhimsariya And Anr. |
|---|---|
| Date of Order | 5th May, 2026 |
| Case Number | IPDCR/12/2022 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:CHC-05:158 |
| Name of Court | High Court at Calcutta (Intellectual Property Rights Division, Original Side) |
| Name of the Honourable Judge | Justice Arindam Mukherjee |
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
