False declaration of "unpublished" status and deceptive similarity to prior registered trademark warrants copyright registration rectification.

The Petitioner, a Singapore-based beverage company, sought rectification of the Register of Copyrights to expunge Respondent No. 1’s registration for the artistic work “SHREE SAKSHAT” (bearing No. A-116796/2017).

The Petitioner is the owner of the internationally recognized “TIGER” logo—an artistic depiction of a leaping tiger first published in 2005—registered as a trademark in India since 2006 and protected globally under the Berne Convention.

Respondent No. 1 applied for copyright registration in March 2016, claiming the work was "unpublished," despite having filed a trademark application for the same mark in 2015 claiming prior use.

The Petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 1’s logo is a substantial copy of their TIGER logo, and that the registration was obtained through a faulty Search Certificate from the Trade Marks Registry which failed to disclose the Petitioner’s prior marks.

1. Whether the impugned copyright registration in favor of Respondent No. 1 is an entry "wrongly made" or "wrongly remaining" in the Register under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

2. Whether the artistic work of Respondent No. 1 is an original work or an infringement of the Petitioner's prior artistic work under Section 13 of the Act.

3. Whether the Respondent No. 1 obtained the registration through a false declaration regarding the "unpublished" status of the work.

The Court applied Section 13(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which protects "original" artistic works.

It relied on Section 17, designating the author/employer as the first owner of the copyright.

The Court emphasized the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Act and Rule 70(6) of the Copyright Rules, 2013, which mandate that applications for artistic works used in relation to goods must be accompanied by a Search Certificate from the Registrar of Trade Marks confirming no identical or deceptively similar mark exists.

The Court also referenced *Marico Ltd. v. Mrs. Jagit Kaur*, noting that copyright and trademark rights overlap in label marks, necessitating strict procedural compliance to prevent "mischief."

The Court found that a side-by-side comparison of the logos revealed that Respondent No. 1 had copied the Petitioner's TIGER logo in its entirety, merely adding minor textual elements like "SHREE SAKSHAT" and a background "V."

These additions did not diminish the "dominant feature" of the Petitioner's TIGER logo.

The Court held that the Trade Marks Registry failed in its statutory duty under Section 45(1) by issuing a Search Certificate that omitted the Petitioner’s prior and identical trademark registrations.

Furthermore, the Court noted a clear *mala fide* intent: Respondent No. 1 declared the work as “unpublished” to the Copyright Office in 2017, while simultaneously claiming commercial use since 2015 in trademark filings.

Consequently, the work was deemed a copy and not an "original artistic work" eligible for protection.

The Court observed that the adoption of the mark was not *bonafide*.

Accordingly, the Court directed Respondent No. 2 (Registrar of Copyrights) to expunge/remove the registration for the artistic work "SHREE SAKSHAT" (No. A-116796/2017) from the Register of Copyrights and ordered compliance to be reported within four weeks.