Failure to Give Mandatory Notice to Interested Parties and Record Registrar's Satisfaction Vitiates Copyright Registration.

The Petitioner, Rajkumar Aggarwal, sought the rectification/cancellation of an artistic work copyright registration granted to Respondent No. 1 by the Registrar of Copyright (Respondent No. 2).

The Petitioner had held a registered copyright since 2009 for a similar artistic work, a fact known to Respondent No. 1, who had previously unsuccessfully attempted to rectify the Petitioner’s registration.

The Petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 1 obtained the registration without serving the mandatory notice required under the Copyright Rules, 2013.

Respondent No. 2 (Registrar) contended that if no objection is received within 30 days of an application, the Registrar is duty-bound to register the particulars.

Respondent No. 1 did not appear but admitted in previous filings that the failure to notify the Petitioner was an error.

The court applied Rule 70(6), 70(9), 70(10), and 70(11) of the Copyright Rules, 2013.

It relied on the principle that rules framed under statutory authority have a "statutory flavour" and are binding as legal compulsions, citing Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Mandal Singh.

The court applied the "Nazir Ahmed Principle" (Nazir Ahmed v. King-Emperor), which dictates that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all.

The Court rejected the Registrar’s argument that registration is automatic if no objection is filed within 30 days. It reasoned that Rule 70(10) contains two distinct parts: the first pertains to the 30-day objection window, but the second imposes a "condition of satisfaction" on the Registrar regarding the correctness of the particulars.

The Court observed that the Petitioner could not object within the timeframe because Respondent No. 1 deliberately bypassed Rule 70(9) by failing to provide notice.

The Court found that the Registrar failed in their "two-tier check" duty under Rule 70(11) by not conducting an inquiry or even checking their own existing register, which would have revealed the Petitioner's prior registration. This failure constituted a jurisdictional error and a violation of mandatory procedural requirements.

The Court allowed the rectification application, set aside the registration, and directed the Registrar to remove Respondent No. 1’s particulars from the database. Respondent No. 1 was granted liberty to apply afresh only after complying with all statutory formalities.