Full Judgment Text
$~32 to 35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(32)
+ CA (COMM.IPD-CR) 5/2026, I.A. 3781/2026, I.A. 3782/2026 & I.A.
3783/2026
FORNNAX TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Harshit S. Tolia, Senior Advocate
alongwith Mr. Kunal Khanna, Mr.
Zahid Shaikh, Mr. Umar Shaikh, Mr.
Rishab Gupta and Mr. Krtin Bhasin,
Advocates.
versus
THE REGISTRAR OF COPYRIGHTS .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC alongwith
Mr. Om Ram and Ms. Nikita Singh,
Advocates for the Registrar of
Copyrights.
Ms. Rukhmini Sharad Bobde, CGSC
alongwith Mr. Manish Rawat, G.P.,
Mr. Gaurav Rohilla, Mr. Vinayak
Aren, Ms. Aishwarya Nigam and Ms.
Shrishti Singh, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. N. Mahabir, Mr. P.C. Arya, Mr.
Shashi Kant, Mr. Rahul Dev, Mr.
Raman Raj Gangwar, Ms. Swati Singh,
Ms. Vijay Laxmi and Ms. Noopur
Biswas, Advocates for R-2 to 4.
(33)
+ CA (COMM.IPD-CR) 6/2026, I.A. 3784/2026, I.A. 3785/2026 & I.A.
3786/2026
FORNNAX TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Harshit S. Tolia, Senior Advocate
alongwith Mr. Kunal Khanna, Mr.
Zahid Shaikh, Mr. Umar Shaikh, Mr.
Rishab Gupta and Mr. Krtin Bhasin,
Advocates.
CA (COMM.IPD-CR) 5/2026 & connected matters Page 1 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.02.2026
14:36:31
versus
THE REGISTRAR OF COPYRIGHTS AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC alongwith
Mr. Om Ram and Ms. Nikita Singh,
Advocates for the Registrar of
Copyrights.
Ms. Rukhmini Sharad Bobde, CGSC
alongwith Mr. Manish Rawat, G.P.,
Mr. Gaurav Rohilla, Mr. Vinayak
Aren, Ms. Aishwarya Nigam and Ms.
Shrishti Singh, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. N. Mahabir, Mr. P.C. Arya, Mr.
Shashi Kant, Mr. Rahul Dev, Mr.
Raman Raj Gangwar, Ms. Swati Singh,
Ms. Vijay Laxmi and Ms. Noopur
Biswas, Advocates for R-2 to 4.
(34)
+ CA (COMM.IPD-CR) 7/2026, I.A. 3787/2026, I.A. 3788/2026 & I.A.
3789/2026
FORNNAX TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Harshit S. Tolia, Senior Advocate
alongwith Mr. Kunal Khanna, Mr.
Zahid Shaikh, Mr. Umar Shaikh, Mr.
Rishab Gupta and Mr. Krtin Bhasin,
Advocates.
versus
THE REGISTRAR OF COPYRIGHTS AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC alongwith
Mr. Om Ram and Ms. Nikita Singh,
Advocates for the Registrar of
Copyrights.
Ms. Rukhmini Sharad Bobde, CGSC
alongwith Mr. Manish Rawat, G.P.,
Mr. Gaurav Rohilla, Mr. Vinayak
Aren, Ms. Aishwarya Nigam and Ms.
Shrishti Singh, Advocates for UOI.
CA (COMM.IPD-CR) 5/2026 & connected matters Page 2 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.02.2026
14:36:31
Mr. N. Mahabir, Mr. P.C. Arya, Mr.
Shashi Kant, Mr. Rahul Dev, Mr.
Raman Raj Gangwar, Ms. Swati Singh,
Ms. Vijay Laxmi and Ms. Noopur
Biswas, Advocates for R-2 to 4.
(35)
+ CA (COMM.IPD-CR) 8/2026, I.A. 3846/2026, I.A. 3847/2026 & I.A.
3848/2026
FORNNAX TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Harshit S. Tolia, Senior Advocate
alongwith Mr. Kunal Khanna, Mr.
Zahid Shaikh, Mr. Umar Shaikh, Mr.
Rishab Gupta and Mr. Krtin Bhasin,
Advocates.
versus
THE REGISTRAR OF COPYRIGHTS .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC alongwith
Mr. Om Ram and Ms. Nikita Singh,
Advocates for the Registrar of
Copyrights.
Ms. Rukhmini Sharad Bobde, CGSC
alongwith Mr. Manish Rawat, G.P.,
Mr. Gaurav Rohilla, Mr. Vinayak
Aren, Ms. Aishwarya Nigam and Ms.
Shrishti Singh, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. N. Mahabir, Mr. P.C. Arya, Mr.
Shashi Kant, Mr. Rahul Dev, Mr.
Raman Raj Gangwar, Ms. Swati Singh,
Ms. Vijay Laxmi and Ms. Noopur
Biswas, Advocates for R-2 to 4.
th
% Date of Decision: 11 Februrary, 2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
CA (COMM.IPD-CR) 5/2026 & connected matters Page 3 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.02.2026
14:36:31
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J: (ORAL)
1. The present appeals have been filed under Section 72 of the Copyright
Act, 1957 (hereafter referred to as “the Act” ) assailing the common order
dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Registrar of Copyright.
2. Mr. Harshit S. Tolia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant submits that the Registrar has committed a fundamental error, which
cannot be countenanced in law.
3. According to Mr. Tolia, the first submission is in respect of the
opposition that had been filed by the respondents under Section 50 of the Act
to oppose the copyright sought by the appellant in respect of the subject
matter of the dispute i.e. “Cutting Chamber Part of Secondary Shredder R-
4000 Front View”. He submits that the opposition under Section 50 of the Act
was not maintainable at all inasmuch as, such opposition can be preferred
only at a stage post registration of a particular copyright and not at the stage
of consideration of the application seeking copyright. Thus, the entertainment
of the respondents’ opposition and consideration thereof at their instance, at
that stage, was neither proper nor as per the statute.
4. Learned senior counsel draws attention of this Court to Section 45 (1)
of the Act to submit that it is either the author or publisher or owner or any
other “person interested” who alone is entitled to apply for a copyright of the
artistic work etc.
5. Mr. Tolia, learned senior counsel also submits that the objection that
the respondents are not “persons interested” in terms of Rule 70(9) and Rule
70(10) of the Copyright Rules, 2013 (hereafter referred to as “the Rules” )
was specifically taken by the appellants, yet, not dealt with properly. He
states that the Registrar, by an incongruous innovation has deduced that the
“persons aggrieved” within the meaning of Section 50 of the Act, could also
CA (COMM.IPD-CR) 5/2026 & connected matters Page 4 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.02.2026
14:36:31
oppose the copyright registration application. In his submissions, the two are
different connotations for two different processes involved at two different
stages envisaged under the Act. None of them could overlap or substitute the
other. Learned senior counsel also submits that the issue as to who a “person
interested” is, was raised in a detailed manner in the written submissions also
citing judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Pramod Sharma vs. State of
U.P., (2023) SCC OnLine All 1904 in support of its contentions, yet, not dealt
with by the Registrar.
6. Learned senior counsel also contends that merely because a design has
been derived from the original artistic work, and applied industrially to create
a product, does not mean that the said artistic work would lose the copyright
on it. He contends that the Registrar completely overlooked the law in this
respect. To buttress the said contention, he relies on the judgement of the
Supreme Court in Cryogas Equipment (P) Ltd. vs. Inox India Ltd. , 2025
SCC OnLine SC 780, particularly para 66, which is extracted hereunder:
“66. To further simplify, the original artistic work, which initially enjoys
copyright protection, does not lose the same merely because a ‘design’
derived from it has been industrially applied to create a product. While the
expression ‘artistic work’ has a broad spectrum, ‘design’ is restricted to
specific features such as shape, configuration, pattern, ornamentation, or
composition of lines or colours, applied to an article through an industrial
process, resulting in a finished product that appeals to the eye. These visually
appealing features, when applied industrially, define a ‘design’ under the
Designs Act.”
7. Inviting attention to Section 50 of the said Act, learned senior counsel
submits that the only person, who is entitled to have any grievance so far as
post-grant of registration of copyright is concerned, is the “person aggrieved”
while at the stage of consideration of application for copyright, the “person
interested” is contemplated to be eligible for opposition at that stage. Contrary
to that, the Registrar has misconstrued the respondents, who are “persons
CA (COMM.IPD-CR) 5/2026 & connected matters Page 5 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.02.2026
14:36:31
aggrieved” within the meaning of Section 50 of the Act, as “persons
interested” in Rule 70(10) of the Rules and permitted their participation in
opposing the copyright application, which is contrary to the statute.
8. That apart, learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the
documents on the basis of which Section 15(2) of the Act has been applied
against the appellant is itself skewed. He submits that though the impugned
order notes the assertion of the appellant that they have produced the subject
matter products approximately to the extent of 29 to 34 units for certain
models, however, has relied completely on the documents like PR articles and
‘success story’ from the appellant’s websites stating that more than 100
installations have been completed so far, to conclude that the stipulation in
Section 15(2) of the Act would prohibit registration of the copyright to the
appellant. He submits that these documents were never furnished to the
appellant, nor was the appellant given an opportunity to rebut the same with
cogent evidence.
9. The impugned order also relies upon certain videos uploaded on
YouTube and other social media platforms to hold the provisions of Section
15(2) of the Act against the appellant. That too was without affording any
opportunity at all to the appellant to rebut the same, having been furnished to
the Registrar on the day of hearing. Moreover, learned senior counsel for the
appellants asserts that the said video clips were not furnished to the appellant
at all on the date of hearing. He submits that all these issues were raised in the
written submissions, however, are conspicuous by their absence in the
impugned order. In support of the said contention, learned senior counsel
invited attention to the written submissions filed by the appellant post hearing
of the objections by the Registrar, in particular paragraphs 16 and 17 which
are extracted hereunder:
CA (COMM.IPD-CR) 5/2026 & connected matters Page 6 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.02.2026
14:36:31
“16. Further, the Petitioner, during the personal hearing before this
Hon’ble Tribunal on 21.01.2026, at 11:00 AM, sought to rely upon a video of
the Director of the Respondent in order to demonstrate the Respondent has
applied the copyright to an article for about 200 times. The same is factually
incorrect, wholly erroneous and misleading. It is hereby stated that none of
these materials, including the comparative charts etc. (the material shared by
the Petitioners while sharing their screen during the personal hearing) were
never supplied to the Respondent before the hearing. Further, there is also an
absolute defiance of the mandatory provision of S. 65B of Indian Evidence
Act/ S. 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, since the electronic evidence
of the video is not supported by the affidavit of the person in charge of the
computer and the expert. Therefore, the said video is inadmissible in
evidence7. The conduct of the Petitioners should be looked down upon
heavily since the Petitioners are trying to arrogate upon themselves the
procedure of this Hon’ble Tribunal.
17. Further, and even otherwise, the video sought to be relied upon by the
Petitioners states that all the products of the Respondents, collectively have
been sold more than 200 times. The conclusion, thereby sought to be derived
by the Petitioner, is a slavish attempt to mislead this Hon’ble Tribunal.”
10. Predicated on the above, learned senior counsel submits that the
impugned order is unsustainable both in law and on facts and needs to be set
aside.
11. On the other hand, Mr. Mahabir, learned counsel appearing for
respondent nos.2 to 4 states that the objections of the appellant so far as the
opposition filed under Section 50 of the Act is concerned, a mere error in
referring a particular provision would not disentitle the respondents from
raising any objection which could, and rightly so, raised in compliance of
Rule 70 of the Rules. In support of the said submission, Mr. Mahabir, learned
counsel, draws attention of this Court to Rule 70 of the Rules. He states that
Rule 70 has been prescribed in pursuance of Section 45 of the Act. Learned
counsel invites attention to sub-section (2) of Section 45 of the Copyright Act,
1957 which reads as under:
“ 45. Entries in Register of Copyrights.
(1) x x x x xx
CA (COMM.IPD-CR) 5/2026 & connected matters Page 7 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.02.2026
14:36:31
(2) On receipt of an application in respect of any work under sub-section (1),
the Registrar of Copyrights may, after holding such inquiry as he may deem
fit, enter the particulars of the work in the Register of Copyrights.”
12. Dilating on sub-section (2), he emphasizes on the words “holding such
inquiry as it deems fit” to submit that an inquiry which is contemplated under
Section 45(2) of the Act is the one which is to be carried out in the manner
prescribed in Rule 70 of the Rules, particularly sub-rules (9), (10) & (11)
thereof. He submits that the Registrar by way of the impugned order has
provided an adequate opportunity to the respondents to assist in conducting
the inquiry. He asserts that it is only for the purpose of maintaining the purity
of the Registrar of Copyrights, that such rules are contemplated, and it is only
in pursuance thereto, that the respondents have objected to, and furnished
whatever documents were in their possession. He submits that the appellant
was also afforded an opportunity of hearing which complies with the
principles of Natural Justice. All documents according to him were
considered by the Registrar before passing the impugned order.
13. So far as the issue of “persons interested” or the “persons aggrieved”
are concerned, he invites attention of this Court to the impugned order,
particularly paragraph where the Registrar has upheld the fact that the
respondents are the “persons aggrieved” within the meaning of Section 50 of
the Act and has held that respondents are entitled to file their opposition to the
application seeking copyrights by the appellant. He thus submits that the
Registrar has acted within the statute and the impugned order is unassailable.
14. Having heard Mr. Tolia, learned senior counsel for the appellant and
Mr. Mahabir, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4 and having perused
the impugned order, documents and pleadings placed on record, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the impugned order needs to be set-aside for
CA (COMM.IPD-CR) 5/2026 & connected matters Page 8 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.02.2026
14:36:31
the purpose of remand.
15. There are two reasons for that – (i) the Registrar appears to have not
considered the objections raised by the appellant in respect of the respondents
that they are not the “persons interested” as required by sub-rule (9) and sub-
rule (10) of Rule 70 of the Rules, and has imported the meaning ascribed to
“person aggrieved” envisaged in Section 50 of the Act to be similar to or
equivalent of “person interested” contemplated in Section 45(1) read with
Rule 70 of the Rules; and (ii) that apart, it is admitted by the respondents that
they are not the “person interested” in which case, whether their role would
commence post the process of Section 50 of the Act or at the stage of Section
45 of the Act read with Rule 70 of the Rules, has not been dealt appropriately
by the Registrar in the impugned order.
16. Another connecting issue which needs to be addressed is the fact that
appellant had asserted that they have produced approximately 29 to 32 units
only for certain models whereas the respondents produced certain electronic
evidence of the appellant in order to sustain their objections that more than
100 installations have been made, and therefore, the prohibition or
prescription under Section 15(2) of the Act would apply in the present case,
and no registration of a copyright can be granted. Copies of such documents
and electronic evidence produced or the date of hearing was accepted by the
Registrar, without furnishing the same to the appellant or affording
opportunity to rebut the same. This Court is of the considered opinion that
having regard to the facts that there are assertions and counter assertions
which have to be considered by the Registrar on the basis of tangible
evidence, which is absent in the present case, the matter needs remittance.
17. In that view of the matter, this Court quashes the common impugned
order dated 28.01.2026 and remits the matter back to the Registrar for de novo
CA (COMM.IPD-CR) 5/2026 & connected matters Page 9 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.02.2026
14:36:31
consideration of the application keeping in mind the broad issues raised
hereinabove.
18. The appellant shall also be entitled to rebut any documents which have
been placed on record by the respondents. The respondents too shall be
afforded an opportunity to make good any documents in furtherance of their
opposition, which they need to file. However, it is made clear that the
Registrar shall also give a finding in respect as to whether an opposition can
be maintained by the respondents.
19. It is also made clear that this Court has not formed any opinion on
merits and the aforesaid observations are only for disposal of the present
appeals. The learned Registrar is at liberty to re-examine the entire issue
afresh without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove on
facts and law.
20. The Registrar of Copyrights is requested to allocate the present
applications to an officer other than the officer who had passed the impugned
order.
21. In that view of the matter, the appeals are allowed in the above terms,
with no order as to costs.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
FEBRUARY 11, 2026
kct
CA (COMM.IPD-CR) 5/2026 & connected matters Page 10 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.02.2026
14:36:31