Bidi Maker’s Bid To Cancel Rival’s Label Copyright Fails As Delhi HC Finds Different Photos, Names And Colours

The petitioner, proprietor of M/s Andaz Bidi Factory, sought cancellation under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, of respondent no. 1’s registered artistic label “JEET BIRI” (Registration No. A-76261/2006).

He claimed prior use and contended that respondent no. 1’s pleadings in a pending civil suit supported an inference of similarity between the labels.

Respondent no. 1 disputed similarity and argued that the labels’ trade dress and copyright works were distinct.

Comparing the labels, the Court noted differences in their names, colours, artwork and photographs, while identifying common features such as a name-banner and a photograph in a circle.

Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides for rectification of the Register of Copyrights.

Copyright protects the particular form, manner, arrangement and expression of an idea, not the idea itself; infringement is assessed by comparing the works and determining whether the later work reproduces the protected expression (R.G. Anand v. Delux Films).

In a Section 50 petition, the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that the impugned work lacks originality or is a colourable imitation; generic similarities alone do not establish substantial reproduction (R.C. Plasto Tanks and Pipes Pvt. Ltd. v. Ganesh Gouri Industries).

Material dissimilarities in prominent features may negate deceptive similarity (Britannia Industries Ltd. v. ITC Ltd.).

A feature common to an industry cannot ordinarily be monopolised, and an admission in another pleading is not conclusive and may be shown to be untrue (Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra; Basant Singh v. Janki Singh).

The Court found that the labels differed materially in their names, colour schemes, artwork and photographs: the petitioner used an elderly man’s photograph, while respondent no. 1 used a young boy’s photograph.

The shared features—such as a banner, a circular photograph and bidi-number wording—were general elements used in bidi labels and did not establish copying of the petitioner’s specific expression.

The Court therefore found no sufficient similarity or colourable imitation warranting cancellation.

It also held that respondent no. 1’s pleadings in the other suit advanced its own claim that the petitioner imitated its label; they were not an admission that respondent no. 1 copied the petitioner’s work, and the comparison remained for the Court to determine independently.

The petition under Section 50 was dismissed, and the pending applications were disposed of.