Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
% Reserved on : 23 February, 2024
st
Pronounced on : 01 March, 2024
+ C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 20/2021
CINNI FOUNDATION THROUGH MANAGING TRUSTEE
DIPAK KUMAR SAH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudarshan Kumar Bansal and
Mr. Arpit Dudeja, Advs
versus
ANJAN NARAYAN SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through:
Mr. Krishnan V., Advs.
Mr. Chandra Prakash, Advocate
and Mr. Abhinav Kumar,
Advocates. for Respondent No. 1
and
Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar,
CGSC with Mr. Srish Kumar
Mishra, Mr. Alexander Mathai
Paikaday for Respondent No. 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J.
1. This rectification petition has been filed by petitioner under Section 50
of the Copyright Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as “ the Act ”)
seeking removal of the entry made in the register of copyright of the
Signature Not Verified
C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 20/2021 1 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.03.2024
11:45:50
artwork (hereinafter referred to as “ impugned
artwork ”) registered under No. A-117189/2017.
2. This petition has been filed by CINNI Foundation (hereinafter referred
to as “ Trust ”) through Managing Trustee Dipak Kumar Sah.
3. The grievance is against the impugned artwork being registered as a
copyright by Ravindra Kumar Sah and Anjan Narayan Singh, also
acting as Chairman and Managing Trustees of the CINNI Foundation.
4. At the outset, counsel for petitioner as well as respondent no.1 (Anjan
Narayan Singh) have apprised this Court that there are several
litigations which are pending between Dipak Kumar Sah who was the
son of Late Sh. Chandra Kumar Sah, one of the first trustees of the
Trust (settled by Raj Kumar Sah and Ravindra Kumar Sah by deed of
th
trust dated 05 November, 2000 in name of “ CINNI Foundation ”).
5. Dipak Kumar Sah relies on clause 5.5 (a) of the deed of trust which
states as under:
“ That Sri Chandra Kumar Sah shall be the first Managing Trustee
and he shall continue to be the Managing Trustee for his lifetime.
He shall be empowered to nominate any person as his successor to
work as Managing Trustee after his lifetime.”
6. Dipak Kumar Sah claims that Chandra Kumar Sah (his father)
th
executed a deed dated 25 September 2012, stating inter alia that basis
the right to appoint successor Managing Trustee, he was exercising his
Signature Not Verified
C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 20/2021 2 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.03.2024
11:45:50
rights to appoint Dipak Kumar Sah, his son, as lifetime Managing
Trustee of CINNI Foundation.
7. On this basis, Dipak Kumar Sah claims to be Managing Trustee of
CINNI Foundation and therefore “ person aggrieved ” in respect of the
registration of the impugned artwork by inter alia respondent no.1 and
Late Shri Ravindra Kumar Sah (the other copyright applicant for the
registration who has since passed away in 2019).
Submissions on behalf of the petitioner
8. Objections taken by petitioner’s counsel in relation to the impugned
work are as under:
8.1. This impugned artwork was the exact replica of the device mark for
th
‘CINNI’ registered by No. 383591 on 27 November 1981 by the
partnership, Raj Kumar Sah and Sons (having partners Raj Kumar
Sah, Rajendra Kumar Sah and Ravindra Kumar Sah), with their
offices in Varanasi (UP). The registered trademark as it appeared in
trademark journal in class 11 appended by the petitioner is as under:
Signature Not Verified
C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 20/2021 3 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.03.2024
11:45:50
8.2. According to the petitioner, the said trademark was assigned by the
th
partnership vide assignment deed dated 05 November, 2000, which
was appended with the petition. Basis the deed of assignment, the
partners of M/s Raj Kumar Sah and Sons assigned the registered
trademark ‘CINNI’ along with other Intellectual Property to CINNI
Foundation through its Managing Trustee Sh. Chandra Kumar Sah.
It was thus claimed that CINNI Foundation acting through Managing
Trustee (which Dipak Kumar Sah said he was) was the owner of the
registered device mark ‘CINNI’.
8.3. Being owner of the registered mark since 1981, the copyright in the
artwork which was part of the trademark could not have been applied
for in 2016 by Ravindra Kumar Sah and Anjan Narayan Singh (who
according to Dipak Kumar Sah are wrongly masquerading as
Managing Trustees of CINNI Foundation). Not only was the
impugned artwork, an integral part of the registered trademark but also
Signature Not Verified
C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 20/2021 4 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.03.2024
11:45:50
authorship of the artwork could not be claimed by the copyright
applicants therein.
8.4. Serial no. 9 of the statement of particulars of the impugned
registration shows 1964 as the year of the first publication. Counsel
for petitioner drew attention to the fact that respondent no.1 (Anjan
Narayan Singh) as per his affidavit March 2022 claimed to be 51 years
on that day and would be therefore born in 1971. Therefore, his claim
for authorship of the said mark in 1964 cannot arise and is impossible
to accept. Since, the application was jointly filed by respondent no.1
and Ravindra Kumar Sah, it was clearly a fraud played out on the
Registrar of Copyright by claiming authorship of both the copyright
applicants since 1964.
8.5. Petitioner’s counsel contended that not only was fraud played out
upon the Registrar of Copyright, but also the Registrar was amiss in
not complying with statutory obligation under the Act: firstly , Section
45 (1) of the Act mandated that in respect of an artistic work capable
of being used in relation to goods and services, the application should
be accompanied by a certificate from the Registrar of Trademarks, to
the effect that no trademark identical with or deceptively similar to
such artistic work had been registered under the Trademark Act. Such
a certificate had indeed been provided, however, it did not disclose the
registration of the ‘CINNI’ trademark of 1981 (and other similar
marks of ‘CINNI’ registered at various other points of time); secondly ,
as per Rule 70(9) mandate of the Copyright Rules 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as “ the Rules ”) the person applying for registration was
mandated to give notice of his application to every person who claims
Signature Not Verified
C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 20/2021 5 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.03.2024
11:45:50
or has interest in the subject matter of the copyright or disputes the
applicants rights; thirdly , as per Rules 70 (10) and 70 (11) the
Registrar of Copyright was obliged to be satisfied about the
correctness of the particulars given in the copyright application and
was to hold an inquiry as deemed fit before endorsing a registration of
a copyright. Petitioner’s counsel stated that no such exercise was done,
there was no application of mind and no inquiry was ever held, which
would itself make the registration invalid.
8.6. It was argued that the phrase ‘ person aggrieved ’ under Section 50 of
the Act had to be liberally constituted including those persons against
whom such copyright was being forced. In the circumstances that an
FIR had been registered by respondent no.1 against Dipak Kumar Sah
in respect of the infringement of copyright, Dipak Kumar Sah would
end up being a “ person aggrieved ”, as also the Foundation that he
claims to be the Managing Trustee of.
8.7. Petitioner’s counsel asserted, quite categorically, that even if there
were disputes between the parties relating to the trusteeship (through
civil suits filed in Varanasi and multifarious litigations), it could not
take away from the fact that the impugned artwork could not exist or
continue on the Register of Copyright, due process having not been
followed as contended above.
8.8. Rights in rem could not have been created as asserted by respondent
no.1 in respect of the impugned artwork, the rights to which they did
not own in law.
Signature Not Verified
C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 20/2021 6 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.03.2024
11:45:50
Submissions on behalf of respondent no.1
9. In response counsel for respondent no. 1 laboured on certain facts to
assert the position that an application for registration of the mark was
made on behalf of CINNI Foundation of which Ravindra Kumar Sah
and respondent no.1 were the Managing Trustees in 2016 (when the
application was made).
10. Counsel for respondent no.1 categorically stated at the outset that
Anjan Narayan Singh (respondent no.1) or anyone else acting on his
behalf was not claiming copyright registration in his individual name
and acknowledged that it was in the name of the Foundation/Trust.
11. Submissions in this regard were inter alia as under:
11.1. Most importantly, he stated that petitioners had suppressed the
execution of the deed for amendment of the CINNI Foundation Trust,
th
dated 30 December 2009. This deed, which was appended by
respondent No. 1, bears out that it was executed by Ravindra Kumar
Sah in the capacity of the settlor of the Trust (the co-settler late Raj
Kumar Sah, father of Ravindra Kumar Sah, having passed away). Re-
constitution of Board of Trustees was necessitated, as per
circumstances stated in the deed of amendment.
11.2. In terms of clause 13 of the said deed, the new trustees of the Trust
were delineated as Ravindra Kumar Sah as Trustee and Chairman,
Anjan Narayan Singh as Managing Trustee, Sumit Agrawal and Smita
Singh as Trustees. It was pursuant to this amendment, that Ravindra
Kumar Sah and Anjan Narayan Singh, as Chairman and Managing
Signature Not Verified
C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 20/2021 7 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.03.2024
11:45:50
Trustee of CINNI Foundation, had filed an application for registration
of copyright in 2016.
11.3. While admitting that Chandra Kumar Sah was the Trustee, in the
original Trust Deed, it was stated that pursuant to the said amendment,
he did not have any right to nominate Dipak Kumar Sah in 2012 as
claimed by petitioner.
11.4. The amendment was challenged by Chandra Kumar Sah, and the
suit filed in 2012 was still pending in District Court Varanasi, and no
interim relief had been granted. Therefore, the claim of Dipak Kumar
Sah to be the Managing Trustee of CINNI Foundation was untenable
and the petitioner’s locus was therefore questioned on that account.
Both, in terms of legal status, as well as being “ person aggrieved ”
under Section 50 of the Act. Notably, facts relating to the pending
litigation proceedings, and there being no interim relief in favour of
Dipak Kumar Sah, were not refuted by petitioner’s counsel.
11.5. Counsel for respondent no. 1 pointed out the minutes of meeting
th
dated 16 January, 2022 of the Trustees of CINNI Foundation which
was attended by Smita Singh, Anjan Narayan Singh and Anvi Singh
as Trustees, taking note of this mater being filed by Dipak Kumar Sah
and authorising Anjan Narayan Singh to take all necessary action on
behalf of the Trust.
11.6. The claim of Dipak Kumar Sah to be authorised by CINNI
Foundation Trust was questioned on the basis that no resolution or
authority had also been filed noting the endorsement by other trustees.
Respondent’s counsel submitted that he was an interloper who could
Signature Not Verified
C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 20/2021 8 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.03.2024
11:45:50
not assert a right on the basis of unilateral nomination by his late father
to the post of Managing Trustee.
nd
11.7. It was pointed out that on 22 April 2009, due to the anti-trust
activity of Chandra Kumar Sah, the other trustees, including his elder
son Suraj Kumar Sah, passed a resolution by majority voting and
removed Chandra Kumar Sah from the post of Managing Trustee.
This was challenged by Chandra Kumar Sah by multiple legal
proceedings, details of which may not be necessary and relevant.
11.8. Respondent no’s 1 counsel pointed out that the subsequent
development of the 2009 trust deed amendment was allowed to
brought on record in 2010, in proceedings before the Delhi High
st
Court. Also, an order dated 01 March, 2013, was passed by this Court
noting that, Chandra Kumar Sah was no longer in the management of
the Trust, and the Trust itself did not want to pursue the suit.
Therefore, the suit was not proceeded ahead with and the matter was
subject to the challenge of the amendment.
Analysis
12. Having heard counsel for parties and on an assessment of the
documents on record and submissions filed, the following appears to
this Court as relevant:
12.1. Aside from the heavily disputed issue of who is the Managing Trustee
of the CINNI Foundation, certain basic facts have been clearly
admitted by the counsel: firstly , that CINNI Foundation is a registered
trust having been originally settled by Raj Kumar Sah and his son
th
Ravindra Kumar Sah on 5 November, 2000; secondly , Chandra
Signature Not Verified
C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 20/2021 9 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.03.2024
11:45:50
Kumar Sah and Ravindra Kumar Sah were both amongst the first
trustees of the said Trust; thirdly , that the registration of the trademark
‘CINNI’ was in favour of the CINNI Foundation in 1981; fourthly ,
that the registration of the impugned artwork as a copyright was also
made on behalf of the CINNI Foundation (albeit by respondent no. 1
and Ravindra Kumar Sah, basis a claim that they were the new
Chairman and Managing Trustee ) . It is therefore quite evident that no
particular individual, in their own right, is claiming the impugned
artwork and copyright therein.
12.2. Needless to say, since Ravindra Kumar Sah has passed away, the other
applicant for copyright i.e. respondent no.1 (who is a party in this
proceeding) will be bound by this statement and undertaking. It is
established that the impugned artwork/copyright was therefore
claimed only by the CINNI Foundation/Trust, and therefore will be an
asset of the Trust which will be held by the Trustees of the Foundation
in favour of the beneficiaries. The Trust being a private trust was made
for the benefit of various family members which were originally
named in the deed of trust, as also for various other activities including
philanthropic work.
12.3. It is axiomatic that trustees hold assets of a trust not in their personal
names, but in fiduciary capacity for the benefit of the named
beneficiaries and for the objectives of the trust.
12.4. Section 3 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, itself defines a ‘beneficiary’,
‘trustee’ as well as ‘trust property’. In accordance with the Indian
Trusts Act, a beneficiary of the trust has a beneficial interest in trust
Signature Not Verified
C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 20/2021 10 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.03.2024
11:45:50
property, which is the subject matter of the trust. A trustee is one
holding property in trust for the benefit of the beneficiary and has
specific duties and liabilities. The trustee owes a fiduciary duty to the
beneficiary.
12.5. Therefore, both the registered trademark ‘CINNI’ of 1981 and the
impugned registration of the artistic work ‘CINNI’ in 2016 was in the
name of the CINNI Foundation/ Trust. Who claims to be the trustee
of the Trust, is clearly a disputed issue as is evident from multifarious
and hydra-headed litigation pending between Dipak Kumar Sah on
one side (claiming through Chandra Kumar Sah, the first Managing
Trustee), and Anjan Narayan Singh (claiming through the 2009
amendment when he was appointed as the Managing Trustee with late
Ravindra Kumar Sah as the Chairman), on the other side.
12.6. It is not within the remit of this Court to enter into this thicket of
disputes, which is legitimately before the Civil Courts of Varanasi and
other courts where ancillary proceedings are pending.
12.7. In a rectification proceeding for an intellectual property right (in this
case, registered copyright), it is only relevant for this Court to
determine whether the copyright is wrongly registered or wrongly
maintained on the Register and should be expunged. CINNI
Foundation, acting through its Trustees, can claim the copyright in the
artistic work of a trademark which is also registered in the name of the
CINNI Foundation itself.
12.8. The contention of the petitioner’s counsel regarding the 1964
authorship claimed by Anjan Narayan Singh would not be therefore
Signature Not Verified
C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 20/2021 11 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.03.2024
11:45:50
relevant, in that Anjan Narayan Singh never claimed or claims that he,
in his individual right, was the author of the artistic work. In fact, he
applied for the registration of the mark as a Managing Trustee of the
Trust and has no proprietary rights in his personal name.
12.9. Further submissions with regard to the non-compliance of Rule 70 of
the Rules, and a fraud being played on the Register of Copyrights may
also not be relevant for the reason that it was the Foundation itself,
acting through its trustees which was applying for the registration.
12.10. Dispute as to who was the trustee of the Trust/CINNI Foundation,
is a matter to be determined by the competent court. It is clear that the
assets of intellectual property rights including this copyright would be
retained in favour of the beneficiaries of the Trust by any trustee who
claim to be the legitimate trustee of the CINNI Foundation, or one
who is ultimately declared to be legitimate trustee. The right would
therefore accrue in favour of the beneficiary to claim the benefit of the
copyright, its value and its exploitation. The trustee would only owe a
fiduciary duty to the beneficiary with regards to this trust property.
13. For these reasons, it would not be necessary to deal into disputes
between Dipak Kumar Sah and Anjan Narayan Singh on the claim of
who is Managing Trustee of the Trust/CINNI Foundation.
14. In light of the statement made by respondent no.1 that the application
was made on behalf of the Trust/ CINNI Foundation and not in his
personal capacity, the rectification petition is disposed of with a
direction to the Registrar of Copyright under Section 50 (c) of the Act
Signature Not Verified
C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 20/2021 12 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.03.2024
11:45:50
to rectify the Register in that the said registration shall be in the name
of the Trust viz. “ CINNI Foundation ”.
15. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
16. It is reiterated that this Court has not made any observations on the
merits of the disputes between Dipak Kumar Sah and Anjan Narayan
Singh or any other claim to the trusteeship of the Trust and has
restricted itself to its remit under Section 50 of the Act.
17. Registry to supply a copy of the order to
registrar.copyrights@gov.in for compliance.
18. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 01, 2024/RK
Signature Not Verified
C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 20/2021 13 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.03.2024
11:45:50