Delhi High Court Clarifies ‘Person Interested’ Threshold, Quashes Copyright Refusal Based on Misapplied Section 50

Delhi High Court Clarifies ‘Person Interested’ Threshold, Quashes Copyright Refusal Based on Misapplied Section 50

Introduction

The Delhi High Court set aside an order of the Registrar of Copyrights refusing registration of an artistic work titled “Cutting Chamber Part of Secondary Shredder R-4000 Front View” filed by Fornnax Technology Private Limited. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the Registrar had erred by equating the expression “person aggrieved” under Section 50 of the Copyright Act with “person interested” under Section 45(1) read with Rule 70 of the Copyright Rules. The Court found that the opposition and the refusal order required fresh consideration and accordingly remitted the matter.

Factual Background

Fornnax Technology Private Limited applied for copyright registration of its artistic work titled “Cutting Chamber Part of Secondary Shredder R-4000 Front View.” The application was opposed by third parties.

Fornnax objected to the maintainability of the opposition, contending that the opposing parties were not “persons interested” within the meaning of Rule 70 of the Copyright Rules and therefore lacked locus to object at the pre-registration stage. It was admitted before the Court that the respondents were not “persons interested.”

In addition, the Registrar invoked Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, which provides that copyright in an artistic work ceases if a design derived from it is applied industrially to more than 50 articles. Fornnax asserted that it had manufactured only approximately 29 to 32 units of the relevant products. However, the Registrar relied on electronic material such as YouTube videos, PR articles, and website content suggesting more than 100 installations to conclude that the statutory bar under Section 15(2) was attracted.

Procedural Background

By an order dated January 28, 2026, the Registrar of Copyrights refused registration of the artistic work. Aggrieved by the refusal, Fornnax approached the Delhi High Court under Section 72 of the Copyright Act.

The High Court examined the reasoning adopted in the impugned order, particularly with respect to the interpretation of “person interested” and the reliance on electronic material without furnishing the same to the applicant.

Issues

1. Whether the Registrar erred in equating “person aggrieved” under Section 50 with “person interested” under Section 45(1) read with Rule 70.

2. Whether the opposition by parties who were admittedly not “persons interested” was maintainable at the pre-registration stage.

3. Whether the Registrar could rely on electronic material to invoke Section 15(2) without affording an opportunity to rebut the same.

Contentions of the Parties

Fornnax contended that Section 45 governs applications for registration and permits opposition only by a “person interested” as contemplated under Rule 70 of the Copyright Rules. It argued that Section 50 operates in a different field, namely rectification proceedings after registration, and applies to a “person aggrieved.” By conflating these two expressions, the Registrar had misdirected himself in law.

The petitioner further submitted that it had manufactured only 29 to 32 units of the relevant products, and therefore Section 15(2) was not attracted. It argued that the Registrar’s reliance on YouTube videos, PR materials, and website content was improper, particularly since such material was accepted on the date of hearing without being supplied to Fornnax or granting an opportunity to respond.

On behalf of the respondents, it was admitted that they were not “persons interested.” The Registrar and the Union of India defended the impugned order.

Reasoning and Analysis

The High Court observed that Section 45 of the Act governs applications for registration, whereas Section 50 pertains to rectification of the register after registration. The Court held that the Registrar had improperly imported the meaning of “person aggrieved” under Section 50 into the framework of Section 45 and Rule 70, thereby treating it as equivalent to “person interested.”

The Court noted that it was admitted that the respondents were not “persons interested.” However, the impugned order failed to appropriately examine whether their opposition was maintainable at the pre-registration stage or whether their role, if any, would arise only under Section 50. On the issue of Section 15(2), the Court found fault with the Registrar’s reliance on electronic material such as YouTube videos and PR articles to conclude that more than 50 articles had been manufactured. It recorded that such material was accepted on the date of hearing without being furnished to Fornnax and without affording it an opportunity to rebut the same. This, the Court held, warranted reconsideration.

The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim and that the matter required fresh examination in accordance with law.

Decision

The Delhi High Court quashed the order dated January 28, 2026 refusing registration and remitted the matter for fresh consideration under Section 72 of the Copyright Act. It directed that the applications be placed before an officer other than the one who had passed the earlier order and clarified that no opinion on merits had been expressed.

In this case the appellant was represented by Senior Advocate Harshit S. Tolia, along with Advocates Kunal Khanna, Zahid Shaikh, Umar Shaikh, Rishab Gupta and Krtin Bhasin.