[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd vs Mr. Vijay Keshav Wagh And Ors on 10 March, 2026
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 17.02.2026
Judgment delivered on: 10.03.2026
CO(COMM.IPD-CR) 18/2023 & I.A. 23338/2023
HEINEKEN ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD. .....Petitioner
versus
MR. VIJAY KESHAV WAGH AND ORS. .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms. Priya Adlakha and Ms. Urvi Nama,
Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Sumit Nagpal, SPC with Mr. Kunal Khurana,
Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 50 of the Copyright
Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking rectification of the
entry in the Register of Copyrights with respect to the impugned copyright
registration for the Artistic Work titled "SHREE SAKSHAT" bearing
Registration No.A-116796/2017 dated 04.05.2017.
2. The petitioner i.e. Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. claims to be
registered under the laws of Singapore and is an internationally recognized
and global leader in the business of manufacture and supply of beverages,
including but not limited to beer.
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
3. Petitioner claims that its string of world renowned beverages
includes the 1932, Singapore-born lager beer under the trademark
"TIGER". Petitioner claims that the said beer has been launched in a variety
of flavours namely TIGER ORIGINAL, TIGER BLACK, TIGER WHITE,
TIGER CRYSTAL, TIGER RADLER & TIGER SOJU INFUSED
LAGER. Petitioner claims that TIGER beer is one of the premium brands
across Asia and in many countries of the world. The label associated with
TIGER beer is claimed to have evolved over the years and pictorially
depicted as under:-
4. The aforesaid logos are said to be the outcome of creative
endeavours of the petitioner's design team and constitute original artistic
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
works of which the petitioner is the first owner of the copyright. Though
the said logos were created in Singapore, however, by virtue of Berne
Convention, copyright thereof would extend to all signatory countries
including India. The logo which is subject matter of the present petition was
first published as early as October, 2005, and is characterized by an artistic
depiction of a Tiger with an outstretched left front paw, an open mouth
where its teeth are visible, and a head that is turned towards the left. The
tail is upturn and curled towards the right. A mane is visible around the
Tiger's face and its eyes are not discernable. The pictorial depiction of the
Tiger logos are reproduced hereunder:
5. The international registration enjoyed by the petitioner and as
maintained in the global brand database by World Intellectual Property
Organization (hereinafter referred to as "WIPO") is annexed as Document-
12 to the petition at page 180 of the paperbook, which indicates the trans-
border registration of the TIGER logo and its formative device and word
marks. The same are not being reproduced hereunder for the sake of brevity
and run into almost 180 registrations worldwide. Similarly, the registrations
of the mark TIGER dated 05.12.2005 in Australia, China, Germany, Italy,
Japan etc., are placed in the documents from page 192 onwards of the
paperbook.
6. The subject matter mark of the petitioner registered in Singapore
appearing at page 240 is extracted hereunder:
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
Similar registrations in Singapore follow from page 249 onwards of
the documents annexed to the petition.
7. The advertisements depicting the TIGER BEER logo are also placed
on record at page 64 of the paperbook, which is the website of the
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
petitioner, and at page 69 of the paperbook, which is a third-party website.
The third-party website indicates the history of the TIGER logo
commencing from the year 1932 onwards till date. Extracts of both the
websites are reproduced hereunder:
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
8. Petitioner claims that in April, 2008, it entered the Indian market
with its TIGER beer through its Indian subsidiary, Asia Pacific Breweries
(India) Private Limited using the logo " ". Though it is claimed that
the TIGER beer was available in India even prior to the year 2008 when it
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
was launched. To support the claim that the TIGER beer was launched in
the year 2008, the coverage of such launch captured on photographs is
enclosed in Document-9, some of which are reproduced hereunder:
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
9. The petitioner exercises its statutory rights over the TIGER logo in
India, under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 on the basis of numerous
registrations commencing from 02.01.2006, which is the subject matter of
the present lis. The said logo registrations are reproduced hereunder:
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
10. It is stated that serial nos.1 and 2 of the aforesaid table refers to the
registrations in India, however, the registrations mentioned at serial nos.3 to
6 are international registrations to which, India too, is a party. The
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
application for registration of the TIGER logo device mark submitted on
02.01.2006 with user detail of 02.01.2006 for Class-32 (Beer, Ale, Lager,
Stout and Mont Beverages) alongwith the image is extracted hereunder:
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
11. Petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned copyrighted work
of the respondent no.1 whereby the device mark of the TIGER has been
unauthorizedly adopted by respondent no.1. The impugned copyrighted
work is reproduced hereunder:
12. Petitioner claims that the application for copyright registration of the
impugned artistic work was filed on 02.03.2016, which was well after the
date of first publication of petitioner's artistic work. It is claimed that the
impugned artistic work clearly incorporates an identical artistic work of a
mark TIGER, which belongs to the petitioner. Petitioner also claims that
merely by adding a 'V' in the backdrop of the TIGER, and adding the
words 'SHRI' (in Hindi) on top and 'SAKSHAT' (in English) at the bottom
of the 'V' do not substantially change the character or nature of work, and
that it infringes the petitioner's TIGER logo/mark.
13. Aggrieved by the above infringement of the copyrighted works by
respondent no.1, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:-
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
14. Ms. Priya Adlakha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the right of the respondent no.1 to file its reply was closed by
the Joint Registrar (Judicial) vide order dated 17.11.2025. She further
submitted that even written submissions in respect of issue on law have
never been filed by the respondent no.1. In such circumstances, she would
submit that since there is no pleading objecting to or refuting the averments
contained in the present petition, coupled with the fact that there is no
traverse to the facts stated by the petitioner, such facts, statements and
documents placed on record in support of the present petition ought to be
deemed to have been admitted and a direction for rectification under
Section 50 of the Act ought to be passed to the extent of expunging the
impugned mark of the respondent no.1 from the Register of the Copyrights.
15. Ms. Adlakha, at the outset, submitted that the respondent no.1
malafide, filed an application dated 02.03.2016 seeking registration of its
artistic work as an author on the basis that the work was unpublished,
which is contrary to the records. She stated that the procedure prescribed
under the Act, on such application is mentioned in Section 45 of the Act. A
Search Certificate ought to be obtained before the copyright sought for is
registered. Learned counsel submitted that curiously, the Search Certificate
dated 18.01.2016 issued by respondent no.3/Registrar of Trade Marks is
conspicuous by the absence of mention of petitioner's logo which would
have indicated that the mark of respondent no.1 is clearly identical or
deceptively similar to the original artistic work of the petitioner. She would
contend that having regard to the illegality committed by the Trade Marks
Registry, the petition ought to be allowed and the copyright registration in
favour of respondent no.1 ought to be expunged from the Register of
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
Copyrights.
16. Learned counsel would next contend that respondent no.1 is a
Trademark Squatter, and cannot be permitted to misuse the registrations.
She would contend that the respondent no.1 has applied for the trademark
registration of the identical mark across all 45 Classes. As an example to
demonstrate the malafide of respondent no.1, she drew the attention of this
Court to the trademark application no.2979728 for goods in Class-01 dated
09.06.2015 at page 105 of the petition, claiming the user detail of
21.05.2015 for the very same artistic work, which is now sought to be
registered under the Act, to submit that it is contrary to, and violative of the
declaration in the copyright application dated 02.01.2016 whereby
respondent no.1 had declared that the mark is unpublished. She contended
that in case the declaration was true and the artistic work was unpublished
as on 02.01.2016, the trademark application for the very same mark applied
for on 09.06.2015 would establish that the declaration is false. For this
reason too, she forcefully contended that the impugned copyright
registration must go. She also submitted that having regard to the conduct
of respondent no.1, he must be declared to be a Trademark Squatter.
17. She relied on the order dated 19.10.2023 in C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM)
225/2023 and C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM)226/2023 passed by this Court
between the same parties whereby in para 6 of the said order, in respect of
the very same trademark, based on the impugned artistic work in Class-32
and 33, respondent no.1 was directed to maintain status quo and no transfer
or license in respect of the said registration or assignment was permitted.
18. Learned counsel also referred to and relied on Section 13(1)(a),
Section 17 and proviso to Section 45(1) of the Act in support of the
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
aforesaid contentions. She contended that the impugned registration had
been granted in contravention of the aforesaid provisions including Rule
70(6), particularly clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of the Copyright Rules, 2013
on the ground that the Search Certificate dated 18.01.2016, issued by
respondent no.3 under Rule 24(3) of the Trademark Rules, 2017 did not cite
the prior existing trademark of the petitioner nor the pending applications.
Thus, the impugned registration being erroneous and faulty, ought to be
expunged from the Register of Copyrights.
19. She relied upon the following judgments in support of her aforesaid
arguments:-
a) Marico Ltd. vs. Mrs. Jagit Kaur, (2018) SCC OnLine Del
8488;
b) . Polo/Lauren Company LP vs. Sandeep Arora & Anr.,
(2022) SCC OnLine Del 341;
c) BPI Sports LLC vs. Saurabh Gulati & Anr., (2023) SCC
OnLine Del 2424;
d) Manju Singal Proprietor Singla Food Products vs. Deepak
Kumar & Anr., (2023) SCC OnLine Del 5503;
e) Hugo Boss Trademark Management GMBH & Company KG
vs. Sandeep Arora trading as Arras the Boss & Ors., (2023) SCC
OnLine Del 7956.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:-
20. Per contra, Ms. Apoorva Sharma, learned counsel appeared on
behalf of the respondent no.1 and stated that it is well settled that the
comparison of two logos have to be seen as a whole and in a composite
manner and not in bits and pieces. She also submitted that there is no
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
exclusivity attached to the copyrights in the TIGER logo mark since there
are many similar brands and trademarks using the word "TIGER" or the
logo of a "TIGER", and as such, the purported original artistic work
existing in the TIGER logo stands diluted. She would contend that in such
circumstances, the original artistic work of respondent no.1 containing the
TIGER logo with the alphabet 'V' in the background when compared in the
composite manner with that of the petitioner, clear distinction can be drawn
by any person merely by looking at it.
21. In support of the aforesaid contention, she also relied upon Section
50 of the Act, to submit that the prayer as made in the present petition can
only be acceded to, if any entry is wrongly made, which is clearly not made
out by the petitioner. Predicated thereon, she would contend that the
petition be dismissed.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:-
22. At the outset, it would be relevant to straightaway compare both the
marks/logos in the case at hand. The comparative table is reproduced
hereunder:
Petitioner's Logos Respondent No.1's impugned logo
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
23. A close scrutiny of both the logos clearly evidence the fact that the
TIGER logo of the petitioner has been copied in totality, in that, the Tiger
with an outstretched left front paw, an open mouth where its teeth are
visible, and a head that is turned towards the left; the tail is upturned and
curled towards the right; a mane is visible around the Tiger's face, and its
eyes are not discernable, is clearly described by the petitioner. The mere
placement of the letter 'V' in the backdrop with the letters "SHRI" (in
Hindi) and "SAKSHAT" (in English) placed at the top and bottom of the
logo respectively, would not, ipso facto, diminish the effect or the
essentiality of the TIGER logo. In other words, the TIGER logo is the
dominant feature or the prominent aspect of the entire mark/label of
respondent no.1.
24. Another fact which has not been denied or rebutted by the respondent
no.1 is that the petitioner has multiple registrations for the logo/mark
TIGER both in India and in other foreign jurisdictions as detailed in paras 9
and 10 of the petition. This TIGER logo has been registered in Singapore
on 06.04.2006, and continues to be valid till date. Same logo has also been
registered in India vide the Certificate No.1611074 dated 19.07.2017. The
said Certificate and the label is reproduced in the preceding paragraphs.
25. The petitioner has asserted that the TIGER logos were the outcome
of creative endeavours of its design team which would constitute original
artistic work, whereby the petitioner would be the first owner and as per the
Berne Convention, such copyright would extend to all signatory countries,
including India. This assertion is duly supported by the law laid down in
Marico (supra), particularly in paragraph 11, whereby this Court has
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
observed that though the trademarks and copyright operate under different
statutes, since the rights in original artistic work could overlap with the
label mark registrable under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the proviso to
Section 45 in the Act has been engrafted. This Court in Polo/Lauren
Company LP (supra), Manju Singal (supra), and Hugo Boss (supra)
reiterated the same ratio. In other words, in cases where there is an overlap
of the nature like in the present case, the proviso to Section 45 of the Act
carves out a procedure where the original artistic work in a mark registrable
under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 may also be protected as against a person
or an entity, which may be seeking registration of a similar artistic work
under the Act. One can perceive that the proviso is inserted to prevent such
mischief. Having regard to the fact that the TIGER logos have been
registered as trademarks in several countries of the world in various classes
with dates of registration/use, the same could constitute as dates of
publications for the said logos in the context of the Act.
26. In such circumstances, the application of the respondent no.1 seeking
registration of its mark/label reproduced above does not appear to be
bonafide. This is for the reason that the Search Certificate dated 18.01.2016
issued by the Trade Marks Registry is conspicuous by the absence of the
prior registered TIGER logo of the petitioner, which was ordinarily
warranted as per the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Thus, not providing the
correct information to the Copyright Registrar is a failure on the part of the
Trade Marks Registry. Even if one were to assume that the mark/label is
not identical, the deceptive similarity between the two marks/logo cannot
be undermined. In fact, it appears that the TIGER logo of the petitioner has
simply been lifted and pasted in its entirety by respondent no.1 on its
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
mark/logo. Thus, the mandate upon the Trade Marks Registry to cite the
TIGER logo of the petitioner was not properly discharged by the Registry.
27. In the above context, it would be appropriate to refer to Sections 13,
17 and 45(1) of the Act read with Rule 70 of the Copyright Rules, 2013 and
are extracted hereunder:
SECTION 13:
"13. Works in which copyright subsists.-- (1) Subject to the provisions of this
section and the other provisions of this Act, copyright shall subsist throughout
India in the following classes of works, that is to say,--
(a) original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works;
(b) cinematograph films; and
(c) [sound recording].
(2) Copyright shall not subsist in any work specified in sub-section (1), other
than a work to which the provisions of section 40 or section 41 apply, unless,--
(i) in the case of a published work, the work is first published in India, or
where the work is first published outside India, the author is at the date
of such publication, or in a case where the author was dead at that date,
was at the time of his death, a citizen of India;
(ii) in the case of an unpublished work other than a 2 [work of
architecture], the author is at the date of the making of the work a citizen
of India or domiciled in India; and
(iii) in the case of 2 [work of architecture], the work is located in India.
Explanation.-- In the case of a work of joint authorship, the conditions
conferring copyright specified in this sub-section shall be satisfied by all the
authors of the work.
(3) Copyright shall not subsist--
(a) in any cinematograph film if a substantial part of the film is an
infringement of the copyright in any other work;
(b) in any 1 [sound recording] made in respect of a literary, dramatic or
musical work, if in making the 1 [sound recording], copyright in such
work has been infringed.
(4) The copyright in a cinematograph film or a [sound recording] shall not
affect the separate copyright in any work in respect of which or a substantial
part of which, the film, or, as the case may be, the [sound recording] is made.
(5) In the case of [work of architecture], copyright shall subsist only in the
artistic character and design and shall not extend to processes or methods of
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
construction."
SECTION 17:
"17. First owner of copyright.-- Subject to the provisions of this Act, the author of a
work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein:
Provided that--
(a)in the case of a literary, dramatic or artistic work made by the author in
the course of his employment by the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine
or similar periodical under a contract of service or apprenticeship, for
the purpose of publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar
periodical, the said proprietor shall, in the absence of any agreement to
the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright in the work in so far as
the copyright relates to the publication of the work in any newspaper,
magazine or similar periodical, or to the reproduction of the work for the
purpose of its being so published, but in all other respects the author
shall be the first owner of the copyright in the work;
(b)subject to the provisions of clause (a), in the case of a photograph taken,
or a painting or portrait drawn, or an engraving or a cinematograph film
made, for valuable consideration at the instance of any person, such
person shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first
owner of the copyright therein;
(c) in the case of a work made in the course of the author's employment
under a contract of service or apprenticeship, to which clause (a) or
clause (b) does not apply, the employer shall, in the absence of any
agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein;
[(cc) in the case of any address or speech delivered in public, the person
who has delivered such address or speech or if such person has delivered
such address or speech on behalf of any other person, such other person
shall be the first owner of the copyright therein notwithstanding that the
person who delivers such address or speech, or, as the case may be, the
person on whose behalf such address or speech is delivered, is employed by
any other person who arranges such address or speech or on whose behalf
or premises such address or speech is delivered;]
(d) in the case of a Government work, Government shall, in the absence
of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright
therein;
[(dd) in the case of a work made or first published by or under the
direction or control of any public undertaking, such public undertaking
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner
of the copyright therein.Explanation.-- For the purposes of this clause
and section 28A, "public undertaking" means--
(i) an undertaking owned or controlled by Government; or
(ii) a Government company as defined in section 617 of the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);or
(iii) a body corporate established by or under any Central, Provincial
or State Act;]
(e) in the case of a work to which the provisions of section 41 apply, the
international organization concerned shall be the first owner of the
copyright therein.
[Provided that in case of any work incorporated in a cinematograph work, nothing
contained in clauses (b) and (c) shall affect the right of the author in the work referred
to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 13.]"
SECTION 45:
"45. Entries in Register of Copyrights.-- (1) The author or publisher of, or the owner
of or other person interested in the copyright in, any work may make an application in
the prescribed form accompanied by the prescribed fee to the Registrar of Copyrights
for entering particulars of the work in the Register of Copyrights:
[Provided that in respect of an artistic work which is used or is capable of being
used in [relation to any goods or services], the application shall include a statement to
that effect and shall be accompanied by a certificate from the Registrar of Trade Marks
referred to in [section 3 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (47 of 1999)], to the effect that no
trade mark identical with or deceptively similar to such artistic work has been
registered under that Act in the name of, or that no application has been made under
that Act for such registration by, any person other than the applicant.]"
xx xx xx
RULE 70 OF THE COPYRIGHT RULES, 2013:
"70. Application for Registration of Copyright.- (1) Every application for copyright
shall be made registration of in Form-XIV and every application for particulars of
registration of changes in the copyright entered in the Register of Copyright shall be
made in Form-XV.
(2) Every such application shall be in respect of one work only, and shall be
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
accompanied by the fee specified in the Second Schedule in this behalf.
(3) Every application should be signed only by the applicant, who may be an
author or owner of right. If the application is submitted by the owner of copyright, it
shall be enclosed with an original copy of no objection certificate issued by the author
in his favour.
(4) Every application for registration of an unpublished work shall be
accompanied by two copies of the work.
(5) Every application for registration of a computer programme shall be
accompanied by the source and object code.
(6) Every application for registration in respect of an artistic work which is used
or is capable of being used in relation to any goofs, such application shall include a
statement to that effect and shall be accompanied by a certificate from the Register of
Trade Marks referred to in section 3 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, to the effect that no
trade mark identical with or deceptively similar to such artistic work has been
registered under the Act in the name of, or that no application has been made under that
Act for such registration by, any person other than the applicant.
(7) Every application for registration in respect of an artistic work which is
capable of being registered as a design under the Designs Act, 2000, such application
shall be accompanied by a statement in the form of an affidavit containing the following,
namely :-
(a) it has not been registered under the Designs Act 2000; and
(b) it has not been applied to an article through industrial process and
reproduced more than fifty times.
(8) Every such application can be filed in the Copyright Office by person or by
post or by online filing facility as provided on the website of the Copyright Office.
(9) The person applying for registration shall give notice of his application to
every person who claims or has any interest in the subject-matter of the copyright or
disputes the rights of the applicant to it.
(10) If no objection to such registration is received by the Register of Copyrights
within thirty days of the receipt of the application, the Register of Copyrights shall, if
satisfied about the correctness of the particulars given in the application, enter such
particulars in the Register of Copyrights.
(11) If the Registrar of Copyrights received any objections for such registration
within the time specified in sub-rule (7), or, if he or she is not satisfied about the
correctness of the particulars given in the application, he or she may, after holding such
inquiry as he or she deems fit, such particulars of the work in the Register of Copyrights
as he or she considers necessary.
(12) The Registrar of Copyrights shall give an opportunity of hearing before
rejecting any application filed for registration of any work.
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
(13) The process of registration is deemed to be completed only when a copy of
the entries made in the Register of Copyrights is signed and issued by Registrar of
Copyrights or by Deputy Registrar of Copyrights to whom such authority is delegated.
(14) The Registrar of Copyrights shall, as soon as may be, send, wherever
practicable, a copy of the entries made in the Register of Copyrights to the parties
concerned."
Section 13 of the Act stipulates the nature of works that may be
registrable under the Act throughout India which may be original literary,
dramatic, musical and artistic works; cinematograph films; and sound
recording. Section 17 provides as to who would be the first owner of the
copyright in the artistic works contemplated under Section 13. Section 45
prescribes the procedure for registration of such works as defined in Section
13 and conferred upon such owners as specified in Section 17 of the Act.
The proviso to Section 45(1) read with the procedure prescribed in Rule 70
of the Copyright Rules, 2013 provides for steps an intending applicant is to
follow and the manner in which the Registrar shall conduct an "inquiry"
before grant of registration to such intending applicant and is significant to
consider. Read together and harmoniously, it is manifest that the applicant
has to issue a statement that no trademark identical with or deceptively
similar to such artistic work has been registered under the Act in the name
of, or that no application has been made under that Act for such registration
by any person other than the applicant. This coupled with the mandate upon
the Trade Marks Registry to issue a Certificate of identical nature, which is
a necessary concomitant to fulfil the laudatory purpose of insertion of
proviso to Section 45 of the Act. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 70 of the Rules, 2013,
necessitates such declaration by the applicant and mandates the Certificate
from the Trade Marks Registry. Reading in any other manner would defeat
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
the purpose and intent of the Legislature in engrafting proviso to Section
45(1) of the Act and Rule 70 of the Rules, 2013, particularly, sub-rule (6)
thereof. Clearly, the intent is to obviate mischief.
28. In the present case, since there was a failure by the Trade Marks
Registry, the Registrar of Copyrights did not have the opportunity to
examine and conduct a proper inquiry as to whether the respondent no.1's
work was original artistic work or not or whether there is already a
registered trademark or registered copyright which may be identical or
deceptively similar. Had the Trade Marks Registry been careful and vigilant
in complying with the mandate of the Act, this situation, perhaps, would not
have arisen.
29. It would also be significant to note that the respondent no.1 in his
application for registration of the copyright in its artistic work dated
04.05.2017 declared that the work was "Unpublished" while in the Trade
Marks Application No.2979728 dated 09.06.2015 claimed the user since
21.05.2015, which is contrary to and clearly violative of the declaration
furnished before the Copyrights Registry. Thus, the declaration furnished
by respondent no.1 is false to his knowledge. It is, thus, apparent that the
adoption of the TIGER logo/mark by the respondent no.1 was not bonafide
apart from the fact that evidently, the artistic work claimed to be original by
respondent no.1 is itself a copy and not an original work, which would
bestow any right upon respondent no.1 as an owner under the Act.
30. That too, when read with the fact that the respondent no.1 furnished a
false declaration to the Copyright Registrar that the work was
"Unpublished", manifestly discloses the malafide. Thus, it is clear that the
intention of the respondent no.1 is not bonafide in seeking registration of
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
copyright in the impugned artistic work under the Act.
31. Another contention of the petitioner was that the respondent no.1 be
declared a Trademark Squatter. However, upon perusal of the petition, it
appears that the petition is bereft of any such grounds inasmuch as it does
not contain any averment or document to substantiate the said contention.
Thus, this Court is not persuaded to render any opinion in the present case.
32. On an overall examination and appreciation of the facts and law, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the registration granted to the
respondent no.1 vide the Registration Certificate dated 04.05.2017 for the
impugned artistic work cannot be permitted to continue in the Register of
Copyrights and hence, respondent no.2/Registrar of Copyrights is directed
to remove the impugned artistic work of the respondent no.1 from the
Register of Copyrights. The compliance be reported within four (4) weeks
from the date of receipt of this order.
33. In view of the aforesaid, the rectification petition stands disposed of
along with all the pending applications, if any.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
FEBRUARY 12, 2026/rl
CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023
