Parul Ruparelia And Anr vs Camme Wang And Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 2788 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Parul Ruparelia And Anr vs Camme Wang And Ors on 8 April, 2026

Author: Arindam Mukherjee

Bench: Arindam Mukherjee

OIP-39
                                                 ORDER SHEET
                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS DIVISION

                                ORIGINAL SIDE

                               IPDCR/1/2025
                         PARUL RUPARELIA AND ANR.
                                    VS
                           CAMME WANG AND ORS.

BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
Date: 8th April, 2026.
                                                                          APPEARANCE:
                                                    Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv.
                                                             Mr. Sourajit Dasgupta, Adv.
                                                                  Mr. Victor Dutta, Adv.
                                                                 Mr.Dhruv Chadda, Adv.
                                                                          For Applicants
                                                           Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Adv.
                                                                     Mr. S.E. Huda, Adv.
                                                                Ms. Amrin Khatoon, Adv.
                                                                  Md. Rizwar Alam, Adv.
                                                                  Mr. Himadri Roy, Adv.
                                                                   Sk. Aptabuddin, Adv.
                                                                Ms. Nabeela Akbar, Adv.
                                                                    Mr. Sahadat Ali,Adv.
                                                                         For respondents

THE COURT: This is an application for rectification of the copyright

registered in the name of respondent no.2. The petitioners say that the entire

process of getting the copyright registered in the name of respondent no.2 is

vitiated as the necessary compliance of the applicable rules of the Copyright

Rules, 2013 has not been made. By relying upon sub-rule 6 and 9 of Rule 70 of

the 2013 Rules, it is submitted by the petitioners that under sub-rule 6 it was

the obligation of the respondent nos.1 and 2 to apply for and obtain a

certificate from the registrar of trade mark referred to in Section 3 of the Trade

Marks Act, 1999 and furnish the same along with their application.

It was also the obligation of the respondent no.2 to intimate the

petitioners about their application for registration as the respondent no.2 was

aware that the petitioners may object to the registration since their right as

holder of the registered trademark is likely going to be affected.

It is further case of the petitioners that the mark of which copyright was

applied for and got registered by the respondent no.2 is registered as the trade

mark of the petitioners. Had the respondent nos.1 and 2 made searches with

the registering authority under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, it would have been

known to the respondent nos.1 and 2 that the petitioners are holding a

registered trade mark of the self-same content. That apart and in any event,

the respondent nos.1 and 2 were all along aware about the trade mark being

registered in favour of the petitioners as the said respondent nos.1 and 2 had

sought for assignment of the registered trade mark from the petitioners prior to

applying for registering the copyright. Since this mandatory procedure has not

been followed by the respondent no.2, the copyright registered in their name is

liable to be rejected and/or cancelled. The respondent nos.1 and 2, however,

dispute such submission.

Arguments could not be concluded.

Let this matter appear for further consideration on 20 th April, 2026.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)