Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (‘Act’) seeking removal of the copyright registration of NIOP NIWAI, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that the artistic work of Respondent 1 was substantially similar to that of the petitioner and was liable to be expunged from the Register of Copyright for want of originality.
Background
The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of edible oil and other allied goods. The petitioners have been using the mark ‘SWASTIK’, ‘SWASTIK NO. 1’ and the SWASTIK Logo in respect of the said goods since the year 1975. The word ‘SWASTIK’ forms an essential part of the petitioner’s said trade Mark / label. The artistic works involved in the petitioner’s trade mark/ label, 
and 
are the copyrighted property of the petitioner.
Respondent 1 is also engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and sale of edible oils and had started using the trade mark/label/artistic work ‘SHUBHARAMBH’ and the device SWASTIK 
and ‘NIWAI’ 
(‘impugned artistic works’) in relation to their goods.
The petitioner had averred that the SWASTIK device forms an essential part of their trade mark and artistic work which was being infringed by Respondent 1’s products. Thus, the petitioners sought cancellation of copyright registration of the impugned artistic works.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court referred to Section 50 of the Act and stated that a rectification petition for the cancellation of a copyright registration can be made by any ‘person aggrieved’ by such registration. The Court noted that the petitioner was clearly a person aggrieved since it was the registered owner of the artistic works being infringed upon by the impugned artistic work and since the petitioner and Respondent 1 are operating in the same trade of edible oil.
The Court opined that the petitioner was a aggrieved person since the usage of the impugned artistic work by the Respondent 1 would dilute the goodwill of the petitioner’s artistic work.
The Court compared the artistic works of the petitioner and Respondent 1 and observed that the both works were substantially similar. The similar background colour scheme as well as the placement of the SWASTIKA device suggests that the impugned artistic work was a substantial copy/reproduction of the petitioner’s artistic work.
The Curt thus held that since the impugned artistic work lacked originality, it was liable to be expunged and cancelled from the Register of Copyright.
[Rajani Products v. Madhukar Varandani, C.O. (COMM IPD-CR) No. 16 of 2024, decided on 24-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Ajay Amitabh Suman, Shravan Kumar Bansal, Rishi Bansal, Pankaj Kumar, Deepak Srivastava, Risabh Gupta, Shruti Manchanda, Deasha Mehta, Advocates
For the Respondents: Nidhi Raman, CGSC, Om Ram, Mayank Sansanwal, Advocates