3. 2146301 Edible oil, Pending
Mustard Oil, -
4. 4838086 Edible Oil, Pending
Mustard oil -
3. The Artistic Works involved in the Petitioner's said Trade Mark /
Label are original Artistic Works of the Petitioner, who is the owner and
proprietor of the same. The Petitioner has obtained copyright registrations
for the said artistic works ('Petitioner's Artistic Works'), the details of
which are as under:
Sr. No Copyright Label Registration No.
1. A-45417/1984
/ SWASTIK LABEL
2. A-46097/1984
/ SWASTIK LABEL
4. Respondent No. 1 is engaged in the business of manufacturing,
marketing and sale of edible oil and goods of allied / cognate nature.
Respondent No. 1 adopted and started using the Trade Mark / Label /
Artistic Work 'SHUBHARAMBH' with the Device of SWASTIK, and
'NIWAI' with the Device of SWASTIK - /
and in relation to their goods. While the Petitioner has no
objection to the usage of the words 'SHUBHARAMBH' and 'NIWAI', the
Petitioner is aggrieved by the usage of the Device of SWASTIK.
5. Respondent No. 1 has adopted and started using the SWASTIK
Device in the Impugned Artistic Work represented as , wherein the
SWASTIK Device forms the essential part of the Trade Mark.
6. The Petitioner filed a Suit being CS(COMM) No. 84/2021 ("Suit")
against Respondent No. 1 for the adoption of the Trade Marks / Labels
'SHUBHARAMBH' with the Device of SWASTIK and 'NIWAI' with the
Device of SWASTIK, wherein the learned District Judge (Commercial
Court-02), South, Saket Court, New Delhi, vide order dated 19.02.2021
granted interim injunction in favour of the Petitioner restraining Respondent
No.1 from dealing in or using the said Trade Marks / Labels.
7. It is the Petitioner's case that it became aware of the Copyright
registration of Respondent No. 1's Impugned Artistic Work from the Written
Statement filed by Respondent No. 1 to the Suit. The details of the said
Copyright registration are as under:
Copyright Name Copyright Label Registration No.
NIOP NIWAI IN A-128046/2019
ENGLISH AND
HINDI WITH
DEVICE OF
SWASTIK
8. Being aggrieved by the said Copyright registration of the Impugned
Artistic Work, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition seeking
cancellation of the same. Notice was issued in the present case vide order
dated 30.08.2024, which was accepted by the learned Counsel appearing for
the Respondents, and the Respondents were granted four weeks' time to file
their Reply. In the order dated 13.12.2024, it was noted that no Reply had
been filed by the Respondents and a further period of six weeks was granted
to file the Reply. Vide order dated 29.04.2025, Respondent No. 1 was given
the last opportunity to file its Reply within a period of four weeks subject to
deposition of cost of ₹10,000/-, and the Parties were also directed to file
their respective Written Synopsis in the present case within a period of four
weeks. However, despite the last opportunity, no Reply was filed by
Respondent No. 1 and, therefore, its right to file the Reply was closed vide
Order dated 08.09.2025.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is
the prior adopter and the registered proprietor of the Petitioner's Artistic
Works. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 1's Impugned Artistic
Work bearing Registration No. A-128046/2019 is a substantial reproduction
of the Petitioner's Artistic Works.
10. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Impugned
Artistic Work is a slavish copy of, identical with and deceptively similar to
the Petitioner's Artistic Works, in each and every respect, including their
essential elements, placement of objects and artistic features.
11. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Respondent No.
1's Impugned Artistic Work substantially imitates the Petitioner's Artistic
Works as the use of the SWASTIK Device is in the same background colour
scheme as that of Petitioner's SWASTIK Device.
12. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner
has acquired substantial goodwill and reputation for its products sold under
the SWASTIK Label bearing the Petitioner's Artistic Works, such that the
members of the trade and public associate the said Label with the Petitioner.
It is further submitted that the adoption of the Impugned Artistic Work by
Respondent No. 1 is dishonest and mala fide, and is likely to cause dilution
of the Petitioner's goodwill and reputation garnered over the years.
13. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the present
Petition be allowed and the registration of the Impugned Artistic Work be
cancelled from the Register of Copyright.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
14. Despite being granted multiple opportunities to file the Reply,
Respondent No.1 did not file Reply. Therefore, vide Order dated 08.09.2025,
Respondent No.1's right to file the Reply was closed. Learned CGSC for
Respondent No. 2 opposed the grant of relief in the Petition.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
15. At the outset, it is noted that in the absence of any Reply filed by
Respondent No.1, the pleadings made in the present Petition remain
uncontroverted.
16. Under Section 50 of the Act, an entry that has been made wrongly and
continues to remain on the Register of Copyright, can be expunged by filing
a rectification petition. Such a rectification petition can be filed by a any
'person aggrieved' by the registration of the said entry.
17. In the present case, the Petitioner is clearly a person aggrieved as -
firstly, the Petitioner is the registered owner of the Petitioner's Artistic
Works; and secondly, the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 are operating in
the same trade, i.e., edible oil and other allied / cognate goods. Therefore,
the Petitioner is a person aggrieved as the usage of the Impugned Artistic
Work would dilute the Petitioner's goodwill in the Petitioner's Artistic
Works / Label SWASTIK, which forms an integral part of the Impugned
Artistic Work.
18. In Marico Ltd. v. Jagit Kaur, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8488, this Court
held that when two labels or artistic works are compared to determine if they
are original, the broad features of both the labels / artistic works are to be
compared. It was further held that the colour scheme and the objects used in
the labels / artistic works should also be considered for determining
substantial reproduction / similarity between them. The relevant extract of
the said judgment is as under:
"6. A perusal of the labels extracted hereinabove shows that the
comparative features of the two labels are so similar that "NIHAL
UTTAM" label can safely be termed as colourful imitation or
substantive reproduction. Colour scheme between the two labels is
the same. The manner in which the coconut tree is arranged is the
same, the arrangement of two broken coconuts is similar. Due to the
long user in the market, the Appellant's label was quite extensively
used and hence the Respondent had access to the Appellant's label.
It is the settled position in law that when two labels or artistic
works are compared, the broad features are to be compared and
not by putting the two labels side by side. The Supreme Court
in Parle Products P. Ltd. v. J.P. & Co., Mysore, (1972) 1 SCC
618 observed as under:
"9. It is therefore clear that in order to come to the
conclusion whether one mark is deceptively similar to
another, the broad and essential features of the two are to be
considered. They should not be placed side by side to find out
if there are any differences in the design and if so, whether
they are of such character as to prevent one design from
being mistaken for the other. It would be enough if the
impugned mark bears such an overall similarity to the
registered mark as would be likely to mislead a person
usually dealing with one, to accept the other if offered to him.
In this case we find that the packets are practically of the
same size, the colour scheme of the two wrappers is almost
the same; the design on both though not identical bears such
a close resemblance that one can easily be mistaken for the
other. The essential features of both are that there is a girl
with one arm raised and carrying something in the other with
a cow or cows near her and hens or chickens in the
foreground. In the background there is a farm house with a
fence. The word "Glucose Biscuits" in one and "Glucose
Biscuits" on the other occupy a prominent place at the top
with a good deal of similarity between the two writings.
Anyone in our opinion who has a look at one of the packets
to-day may easily mistake the other if shown on another day
as being the same article which he had seen before. If one
was not careful enough to note the peculiar features of the
wrapper on the plaintiffs' goods, he might easily mistake the
defendants' wrapper for the plaintiffs' if shown to him some
time after he had seen the plaintiffs'. After all, an ordinary
purchaser is not gifted with the powers of observation of a
Sherlock Holmes. We have therefore no doubt that the
defendants' wrapper is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs'
which was registered. We do not think it necessary, to refer to
the decisions referred to at the Bar as in our view each case
will have to be judged on its own features and it would be of
no use to note on how many points there was similarity and in
how many others there was absence of it."
7. Though the above observation has been rendered in the context of
comparison of label marks in a passing off action, the tests for
comparison of labels which are artistic works, would be the same."
[Emphasis Supplied]
19. A comparison of the Petitioner's Artistic Works and the Impugned
Artistic Work is as under:
Petitioner's Artistic Works Impugned Artistic Work
(A-46097/84) (A-128046/19)
(A-45417/84)
20. It is well-settled in law that Copyright protection is granted to an
artistic work under the Act, only if the said work meets the threshold of
originality.
21. From the above comparison, it is clear that the Impugned Artistic
Work is substantially similar to Petitioner's Artistic Works. The Impugned
Artistic Work reproduces the SWASTIK device, which forms an essential
part of the Petitioner's Artistic Works. Further, the similar background
colour scheme of the competing artistic works of the Petitioner and
Respondent No.1 as is evident from the table above, in addition to the
placement of the objects such as the SWASTIK device which is contained in
a circle in the Petitioner's Artistic Work bearing Registration No. A-
46097/84, suggest that the Impugned Artistic Work is a substantial imitation
/ reproduction of the Petitioner's Artistic Works.
22. Considering the above, the Impugned Artistic Work lacks originality
and is liable to be expunged from the Register of Copyright. Accordingly,
the present Petition is hereby allowed and the Copyright registration bearing
No. A-128046/2019 is expunged and cancelled from the Register of
Copyright.
23. The Registry is directed to supply a copy of this Order to the Office of
the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks of India at the
E-Mail Address - [email protected] for compliance of this Order. Let this
Order be reflected on the website of the Controller General of Patents,
Designs and Trade Marks of India within four weeks.
24. The present Petition and the pending Application stand disposed of.
TEJAS KARIA, J
NOVEMBER 24, 2025
ap/st
