Brief Introductory Note
This case involves a dispute over copyright protection for artistic labels used in the edible oil business. Rajani Products, a partnership firm, filed a petition in the Delhi High Court to cancel a copyright registration held by Madhukar Varandani, who runs Naturalindia Oils and Proteins. The main issue was whether Varandani’s label, which included a Swastik device, copied Rajani Products’ earlier labels too closely, making it unoriginal and unworthy of copyright protection. The court examined if the challenged label was a substantial imitation of the original works, leading to its removal from the copyright register. This decision highlights how courts protect original creative works in business branding while preventing unfair copying that could harm established reputations.
Factual Background
Rajani Products is a partnership firm that makes and sells edible oils and similar products. They claim to have started using the Swastik mark, including labels like “Swastik No. 1” and a Swastik logo, back in 1975 through their earlier owners. The word “Swastik” is a key part of their branding.
Rajani Products’ Trademarks and Copyrights
| Type | Details | Validity |
|---|---|---|
| Trademark | “Swastik No. 1” – Application No. 411334 (mustard & til oil) | Valid until 2034 |
| Trademark | “Swastik” – Application No. 1055218 (various edible oils) | Valid until 2031 |
| Trademark (Pending) | Two pending applications | — |
| Copyright | A-45417/1984 – Swastik label | — |
| Copyright | A-46097/1984 – Similar Swastik label | — |
Varandani’s Use of Swastik Labels
Madhukar Varandani runs Naturalindia Oils and Proteins. He started using labels such as:
- “Shubharambh” with a Swastik device
- “Niwai” with a Swastik device
Rajani Products did not oppose the words but objected to the Swastik device, claiming it resembled theirs. Varandani obtained a copyright registration in 2019 for an artistic work titled “NIOP Niwai in English and Hindi with Device of Swastik”, numbered A-128046/2019.
Prior Litigation
Rajani Products discovered this copyright during another lawsuit. Earlier, on February 19, 2021, the District Judge, South Saket Court, New Delhi, had granted a temporary injunction restraining Varandani from using the disputed labels.
Procedural Detail
The case was filed as a petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, numbered C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 16/2024. This provision allows removal of wrongly entered copyrights.
Key Procedural Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| August 30, 2024 | Court issued notice; respondent given 4 weeks to reply. |
| December 13, 2024 | Reply not filed; 6-week extension granted. |
| April 29, 2025 | Final extension of 4 weeks with ₹10,000 cost. |
| September 8, 2025 | Right to file reply closed due to non-compliance. |
| November 24, 2025 | Judgment delivered. |
The copyright office opposed the cancellation but gave no detailed arguments. The matter proceeded without Varandani’s full defense.
Core Dispute
The key question was whether Varandani’s copyrighted label was original or an imitation of Rajani Products’ earlier Swastik labels. Rajani Products argued:
- They were the first to use the Swastik design since 1975.
- Varandani’s label copied essential design elements—shape, placement, and colors.
- This copying harmed their reputation and goodwill.
The court had to determine whether the challenged work met the originality requirement under copyright law.
Detailed Reasoning
The court noted that since Varandani failed to file a reply, Rajani Products’ claims remained unchallenged. Under Section 50, a “person aggrieved” can seek removal of an improperly entered copyright. Rajani Products qualified because:
- They own prior copyright registrations for similar Swastik labels.
- Both parties sell the same category of products.
- Confusion could dilute Rajani Products’ goodwill.
Legal Test for Originality
The court relied on two key precedents:
- Marico Ltd. v. Jagit Kaur, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8488 – Courts compare labels based on overall impression, not microscopic detail.
- Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co., Mysore, (1972) 1 SCC 618 – Ordinary buyers are not expert observers; broad similarities matter more.
Applying these principles, the court compared both labels. Rajani Products’ 1984 labels featured a Swastik enclosed in a circle with specific colors and layout. Varandani’s 2019 label used a nearly identical Swastik device, circle layout, and similar background colors. The court found it a “substantial imitation or reproduction.”
Finding
As the challenged work lacked originality and closely copied essential features, its registration was considered wrongly made under the Copyright Act, 1957.
Decision
The court allowed the petition and ordered cancellation of copyright registration A-128046/2019. The copyright office must remove it from the register and update its website within four weeks. The petition and related applications were closed.
Concluding Note
This case shows the importance of originality in copyright for business labels. It reminds companies to create unique designs rather than borrow from others, as courts will step in to protect earlier creators and prevent confusion in the market. By canceling the registration, the court upheld fair competition in the edible oil industry, ensuring that goodwill built over years isn’t unfairly diluted.
Case Details
| Case Title | Rajani Products Vs Madhukar Varandani |
| Order Date | November 24, 2025 |
| Case Number | C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 16/2024 |
| Neutral Citation | 2025:DHC:10368 |
| Name of Court | High Court of Delhi at New Delhi |
| Hon’ble Judge | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia |
Disclaimer
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By
Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
