Delhi High Court Cancels Copyright in Bicycle Parts Label, Holds Registered Sticker Is a Substantial Imitation Lacking Originality
Delhi High Court Cancels Copyright in Bicycle Parts Label, Holds Registered Sticker Is a Substantial Imitation Lacking Originality
Introduction
The Delhi High Court cancelled the copyright registration of a bicycle parts packaging label used by Tara Singh, holding that the impugned sticker was a substantial imitation of the prior artistic work of Bombay Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. The Court held that copyright subsists only in original artistic works, and the impugned label failed the test of originality.
Factual Background
Bombay Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. manufactures and markets bicycle parts, including “Ball Head Racer,” using a distinctive packaging sticker in which it claimed copyright. The sticker features a yellow circular roundel on a golden background, black lettering around the circle, and a red centre with yellow lettering containing the “BM” logo.
In January 2002, the petitioner discovered that Tara Singh, proprietor of R.S. Industries Pvt. Ltd., was using deceptively similar packaging for identical goods. A civil suit was filed, in which interim relief was granted restraining such use. Subsequently, in 2004, the petitioner came across the impugned sticker that later formed the subject matter of the copyright registration dispute.
In 2006, the petitioner learnt that Tara Singh had secured copyright registration for the impugned label and was asserting proprietary rights on that basis, leading to the present rectification proceedings under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Procedural Background
The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 50 of the Copyright Act seeking rectification of the Register of Copyrights by cancellation of the respondent’s registration. The plea was founded on the allegation that the registered work was a colourable and slavish imitation of the petitioner’s pre-existing artistic label.
Issues
1. Whether the petitioner qualified as an “aggrieved person” entitled to seek rectification under Section 50.
2. Whether the impugned sticker satisfied the standard of originality under copyright law.
3. Whether the registered label was liable to be cancelled for being a substantial imitation of the petitioner’s artistic work.
Contentions of the Parties
The petitioner argued that the respondent’s sticker was a deliberate imitation of its artistic work, pointing to the common yellow circular element, the red centre with yellow lettering, and the similar placement of black text. It was submitted that the adoption was mala fide and intended to ride upon the goodwill of the petitioner’s long-established packaging.
The respondent contended that the two works were visually and conceptually distinct, emphasizing the different trade names “BM LIMITED” and “RAJIS QUALITY AND QUANTITY.” It was further argued that no monopoly can exist over common colours such as yellow, and that the chosen colour scheme was functional, intended merely to ensure clarity and readability.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first held that Bombay Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. was clearly an “aggrieved person” under Section 50, since both parties operated in the same line of business and the impugned registration had the potential to dilute the petitioner’s goodwill.
On originality, the Court reiterated that copyright protection extends only to original artistic works. The inquiry, therefore, was whether the impugned sticker reflected sufficient originality or was merely a substantial imitation of the petitioner’s prior work.
Comparing the two labels holistically, the Court found striking similarities in the overall layout, colour combination, and arrangement. Both labels prominently featured a yellow circular roundel, yellow trade names placed against a red centre, and similarly arranged black lettering around the circle. The Court held that these common features, taken together, created an overwhelming similarity in the visual impression of the labels.
The mere substitution of the trade name “BM” with “Rajis” did not alter the essential artistic expression, which remained substantially copied from the petitioner’s original work.
Decision
The High Court allowed the rectification petition and directed that the respondent’s copyright registration be cancelled and expunged from the Register of Copyrights.
In this case the plaintiff was represented by Advocates Sachin Gupta, Prashansa Singh, Mahima Chanchalani, Rohit Pradhan, Diksha Tekriwal and Ajay. Meanwhile the respondent was represented by Advocate Nishi Ranjan Singh, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1A and 1B.
