Substantial imitation of artistic layout warrants cancellation of copyright registration for lack of originality.

The Petitioner, a manufacturer of bicycle parts, owns several copyright registrations for its packaging and stickers, including Registration No. A-74419/2005 ("Petitioner’s Sticker").

The Petitioner’s Sticker features a yellow circle on a golden background with a red center and yellow lettering.

In 2002, the Petitioner filed a civil suit against Respondent No. 1 for infringement and obtained an interim injunction.

In 2006, the Petitioner discovered that Respondent No. 1 had obtained Copyright Registration No. A-76602/2006 ("Impugned Registration") for an "Impugned Sticker" that used a nearly identical color scheme and layout.

The Petitioner filed the present petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, seeking the removal of the Impugned Registration from the Register.

1. Whether the Petitioner qualifies as a "person aggrieved" under Section 50 of the Copyright Act to maintain the rectification petition.

2. Whether the artistic work in the Impugned Registration lacks originality and constitutes a substantial reproduction of the Petitioner’s copyrighted work, justifying its expungement from the Register.

The court primarily applied Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which allows an "aggrieved person" to seek rectification of the Register for entries made wrongly or remaining wrongly on the Register.

It relied on the principle that copyright protection is only granted to "original" artistic works.

The court applied the standard from Marico Ltd. v. Jagit Kaur (2018), which establishes that labels must be compared based on broad features, color schemes, and arrangement of objects to determine substantial reproduction.

It further cited Parle Products P. Ltd. v. J.P. & Co. (1972), holding that deceptive similarity is assessed by overall similarity likely to mislead a person of average intelligence.

The court first determined that the Petitioner is a "person aggrieved" because it holds a prior registration and operates in the same trade, meaning the Impugned Registration could dilute its goodwill.

Comparing the two works, the court observed that both stickers feature a yellow roundel/circle, the respective trade names ('BM' and 'Rajis') in yellow lettering on a red background, and secondary text ('QUALITY'/'QUANTITY' vs. company name/location) in black lettering in identical positions.

The court rejected the Respondents' argument that colors are generic, finding that the imitation of the overall layout, color combination, and placement was not a coincidence but a "substantial imitation/reproduction".

Consequently, the court found the Respondent's work lacked the requisite originality required for copyright protection.

The petition was allowed, and the court ordered the Impugned Registration to be cancelled and expunged from the Register of Copyright.

The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks for compliance within four weeks.