The procedural requirements for copyright registration of an artistic work in India ensure that the particulars entered in the Register of Copyrights are accurate and that persons whose rights may be affected have an opportunity to place their objections before the authority. The absence of an objection within the prescribed period does not dispense with the Registrar’s obligation to assess the correctness of the application. This issue holds particular importance in cases where the register already contains a registration by another party for an artistic work. In Rajkumar Aggarwal, Proprietor of M/s. Petro Product vs Nand Kishore Bhimsariya and Anr., [IPDCR/12/2022], the Calcutta High Court dealt with the same issue and decided on the application seeking rectification filed by the petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner filed an application for rectification of a copyright registration granted in favour of Respondent No. 1. The petitioner contended that the registration was granted without complying with the requirements prescribed under the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Copyright Rules, 2013. It was argued that the petitioner held an earlier copyright registration, and Respondent No. 1 had knowledge of such registration.
According to the petitioner, their artistic work had been registered in 2009. Prior to the grant of that registration, Respondent No. 1 had applied for rectification in relation to the petitioner’s copyright application, which was rejected, and the petitioner’s details were entered in the Register of Copyrights. The petitioner submitted that Respondent No. 1 was aware of their copyright in the subject matter when Respondent No. 1 later applied for registration of their own copyright.
The petitioner challenged the respondent’s registration application on the ground that they had not been given notice of Respondent No. 1’s application. Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013 requires a person applying for registration to give notice of the application to every person who claims, or has any interest in, the subject matter of the copyright or who disputes the applicant’s rights to it. The petitioner contended that, in view of the earlier proceedings between the parties and their existing registration, a notice was required to be issued to them. Since they were not informed of the application, they could not raise an objection within the prescribed period.
Respondent No. 2 acknowledged before the Court that the obligation to comply with Rules 70(6) and 70(9) was on the applicant seeking registration and that Respondent No. 1 had not complied with the mandatory requirements. At the same time, Respondent No. 2 submitted that, once an application had been filed and no objection was received within 30 days, the Registrar was required to enter the particulars in the Register of Copyrights. In support of this position, the respondent relied on the Delhi High Court’s decision in M/s. New Bharat Overseas vs M/s. Bhagwati Lacto Vegetarian Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Court took note of the written objection filed by Respondent No. 1 before the Copyright Board, in which it had been admitted that there had been an error in not putting the petitioner on notice. The Court held that the Copyright Rules, 2013 carry statutory force and must be followed by applicants as well as statutory authorities. On this basis, the Court held that the obligation under Rule 70(9) was mandatory and that non-compliance with the notice requirement directly affected the validity of the registration process.
The Court further found that Respondent No. 1 was required to notify the petitioner of the application for copyright registration. The absence of notice prevented the petitioner from having an opportunity to consider and file an objection.
The Court then considered the Registrar’s argument that no further enquiry was required once the 30-day objection period had passed without an objection. For this, the Court relied on Rule 70(10), which provides that where no objection is received within 30 days from the receipt of the application, the Registrar shall, if satisfied about the correctness of the particulars given in the application, enter those particulars in the Register of Copyrights. The Court held that the Registrar must examine the correctness of an application irrespective of whether an objection has been received. An application is therefore not entitled to registration solely because the objection period has expired without opposition. The Court reasoned that the contrary interpretation would reduce the notice requirement under Rule 70(9) to little practical effect.
On the facts of the case, the Court found that the Registrar had not undertaken the examination required under Rules 70(10) and 70(11). The petitioner’s earlier registration was already on the Register, and verification of the official records would have disclosed the registration in the petitioner’s favour and prevented any later registration.
In view of these findings, the Court held that the registration granted in favour of Respondent No. 1 could not be sustained. The Court did not consider it appropriate to remand the existing application for reconsideration, since the application itself had proceeded without compliance with the mandatory notice requirement and the registration had been granted without the examination required by the Registrar.
The Court thus set aside the copyright registration in favour of Respondent No. 1 and directed the Registrar of Copyright to remove the particulars of the registered copyright from the Register and to de-register the work. The application filed by Respondent No. 1 was also rejected for non-compliance with the mandatory statutory requirements. The Court, however, clarified that this would not prevent Respondent No. 1 from filing a fresh application after complying with the applicable formalities and requirements.
Conclusion
The decision clarifies the procedural standard applicable to applications for copyright registration, particularly those involving artistic works that are commercially used. It establishes that the 30-day period under Rule 70(10) does not automatically create registration if no objections have been filed against the application. The Registrar must independently assess the correctness of the application and consider whether an enquiry is required before registration is granted.
Authors – Manisha Singh (Partner) and Shivi Gupta (Associate Partner)