C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024 Page 1 of 18

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 29

th

May, 2026

+ C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024

FORTUNE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Nageshwar Kumhar, Mr.

Siddharth Yadav, Mr. Ayush Dey, Mr. Anmol

Pandey and Mr. Nitin Yadav, Advocates.

versus

GUJARAT PESTICIDES & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Vinay P. Tripathi, Mr. Nilesh

Nayak, Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker and Ms. Preeti

Shukla, Advocates for R-1.

Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Om Ram and

Ms. Nikita Singh, Advocates for R-2 and R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J.

1. This petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 50 of the

Copyright Act, 1957 (‘1957 Act’) for cancellation of impugned copyright

registration bearing No.A-153061/2024 pertaining to artwork

titled ZOOOK, registered in the name of Respondent No.1.

2. To the extent necessary, case of the Petitioner is that Petitioner is the

true owner and prior and honest adoptor and user of registered trademark

C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024 Page 2 of 18

ZOOOK and its variants including logo , in which

Petitioner also has copyright registration. Due to substantial and prolonged

use, extensive sales and advertisements, Petitioner has acquired statutory

and common law rights in the ZOOOK marks as also copyright in

. Details of trade mark registrations in favour of the

Petitioner are as follows:-

C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024 Page 3 of 18

3. Details of Copyright registration in favour of the Plaintiff in the logo

is as follows:-

4. It is averred in the petition that the earliest registration in favour of the

Petitioner was in the mark in Class 09, which dates

back to 07.11.2013 and is valid upto 07.11.2033. Online search of ZOOOK

produces numerous results, which are exclusively associated with the

Petitioner. Given the abundance of organic search results and global

accessibility of the internet, it would not be wrong to say that ZOOOK

marks are globally known and most certainly in India, the awareness of the

business model of the Petitioner under the said mark is widespread and

unquestionable. Petitioner has undertaken several promotional endeavors

across various channels to enhance the visibility and recognition of ZOOOK

marks including through television commercials, newspapers, magazines,

digital platforms etc. and many celebrities have endorsed Petitioner’s brand.

5. It is stated that Petitioner owns and operates a dedicated website

www.zoook.com which is registered since 15.07.2011 and conveys

information of the extensive range of products under the ZOOOK marks.

Apart from traditional methods of advertising and promotion, Petitioner has

promoted the products under the ZOOOK marks on social media platforms,

including but not limited to Facebook, Instagram and YouTube etc.

C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024 Page 4 of 18

Petitioner sponsored the Indian Cricket Team in the Road Safety World’s

Series T20, 2020-21 and the India vs. South Africa Series in 2022, which

enhanced the reputation of the brand. The revenues earned from 2016-17 till

2023-24, details of which are furnished in paragraph 8 of the petition, are

reflective of the unprecedented success of Petitioner’s products under the

ZOOOK marks, which are well known for their superior quality. Petitioner

has been vigilant and proactive in safeguarding its intellectual property

rights and has filed various trademark oppositions and law suits in this

regard, as detailed in paragraph 14 of the petition.

6. It is stated that in January, 2020, Petitioner discovered a trademark

application bearing no. 4264084 in Class 01 for the mark filed by

Respondent No.1 on 13.08.2019, which subsumed the registered trademark

ZOOOK of the Petitioner as also the copyright. Petitioner filed Notice of

Opposition on 14.01.2020, which was numbered as Opposition No.1025716.

Respondent No.1 failed to file the affidavit under Rule 46 of Trade Marks

Rules, 2017 (‘2017 Rules’) for leading evidence and subsequently filed

Letter of Withdrawal. On 13.12.2022, an order was passed by the Registrar

permitting withdrawal of the application. However, within 10 days of the

withdrawal, Respondent No.1 filed two more trademark applications for

(packaging/label) and ZOOOK (word mark) bearing application

Nos. 5730850 and 5730851 in Class 01. On 21.12.2022, the applications

C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024 Page 5 of 18

were accepted by the Trade Marks Registry and published in the Trade

Marks Journal. Petitioner filed Notices of Opposition against the word mark

on 30.09.2023 bearing Opposition No. 1242805 as also against the label

mark on 19.12.2023 bearing Opposition No. 1264878. As

brought forth in the petition, in the first opposition, notice was served on

Respondent No.1 on 14.12.2023 but no counter statement has been filed and

the opposition is pending. In the second opposition, the matter is listed for

final hearing.

7. It is stated that in May, 2024, Petitioner discovered that Respondent

No.1 had secured copyright registration in the impugned packaging/label

titled ZOOOK on 25.04.2024 comprising artistic work

identical to label mark , which is pending for registration with

the Registrar of trade marks and has been opposed by the Petitioner. It is

pertinent that prior to grant of registration, Respondent No.3/Registrar of

Trade Marks granted Trade Marks Search Certificate (TM-C) on 26.10.2023

under Rule 22(1) of 2017 Rules for use under Section 45(1) of 1957 Act,

despite conflicting marks of the Petitioner on the Register. Aggrieved by

C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024 Page 6 of 18

grant of copyright registration certificate in favour of Respondent No.1 by

Respondent No.2/Registrar of Copyright, the present petition has been filed

for cancellation.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that Petitioner qualifies as

‘person aggrieved’ for filing this petition as it is the registered proprietor,

owner and prior adoptor and user of the ZOOOK marks and has a copyright

registration in , which it has continuously and

extensively used since 2013. The earliest registration is of the device mark

and dates back to 07.11.2013 in Class 09. The word

‘ZOOOK’ is a coined word with no dictionary meaning and was conceived

by the Petitioner. Respondent No.1 has not demonstrated any independent

creativity or originality in the impugned artistic work and has offered no

valid justification for incorporating Petitioner’s registered mark in its work.

The only explanation now rendered that the mark ZOOOK was taken from

Nigerian plant called ZUK is an afterthought and reverse engineering as this

stand was never raised in the earlier opposition proceedings.

9. It was urged that the application for copyright registration leading to

the impugned registration clearly demonstrates mala fides of Respondent

No.1 and bad faith adoption. Having not succeeded in obtaining trademark

registration for the mark ZOOOK, Respondent No.1 found a circutious and

an ingeneous way of using the ZOOOK mark which is identical to the

registered trademark of the Petitioner. Respondent No.1 filed a trademark

C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024 Page 7 of 18

application in 2019 in Class 01 for registration of logo subsuming

the mark ZOOOK but after the Petitioner filed opposition, the application

was withdrawn, as Respondent No.1 clearly realised that the mark was

identical and the application would not sustain in law. Yet another attempt

was made by filing applications for registrations of word mark ZOOOK and

label mark , in which oppositions have been filed by the

Petitioner and applications are pending consideration. It is obvious that

Respondent No.1 is forum shopping and having been unsuccessful in getting

trademark registrations, it resorted to the path of securing copyright

registration in an artistic work which is almost similar to the label mark

with the word ZOOOK. It is also not understood how

Respondent No.3 rendered an incorrect search certificate showing no

identical/similar mark and granting NOC, overlooking the earlier

communication dated 01.03.2023 stating that in light of the search report

containing cited marks, copyright certificate could not be issued and calling

upon the Petitioner to file written submissions. The search report referred to

C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024 Page 8 of 18

several conflicting marks on the Register, including Petitioner’s

device mark registered in Classes 13 and 35.

10. It was argued that once the oppositions with respect to the ZOOOK

marks, both word and label, were pending, neither the NOC nor the

copyright registration certificate ought to have been granted in favour of

Respondent No.1. The copyrighted work of Respondent No.1 contains the

mark ZOOOK, which is visually, structurally and phonetically identical to

Petitioner’s registered ZOOOK marks and it is inevitable that when the work

will be used by Respondent No.1 for its packaging etc., there will be

consumer confusion and owing to the formidable goodwill and reputation of

the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 will successfully pass off its goods and

achieve indirectly what it could not achieve directly through trade mark

registration. In any event, the impugned registration is against the concept of

purity of Register, as the same has been obtained contrary to an existing

trademark of the Petitioner by playing fraud on the Trade Marks as also

Copyright Registrar.

11. Last but not the least, it was strenuously urged that the purpose of

Section 45 of 1957 Act is to prevent unscrupulous persons from copying

trade marks with the intent of passing off and taking shelter under false

claims of copyright registrations in the artistic work and which is why

proviso to Section 45 provides that in respect of an artistic work which is

used or is capable of being used in relation to any goods or services,

application shall include a statement to that effect and shall be accompanied

by a certificate from the Registrar of Trade Marks that no trademark

identical with or deceptively similar to such artistic work has been registered

C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024 Page 9 of 18

under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘1999 Act’) in the name of, or that no

application has been made under the 1999 Act for such registration by, any

person other than the applicant. In this context, reliance was placed on the

judgment of this Court in Hugo Boss Trademark Management GMBH and

Company KG v. Sandeep Arora Trading as Arras The Boss and Others,

2023 SCC OnLine Del 7956, to argue that while granting the search

certificate, Registrar of Trade Marks ought to have seen the registered

trademark of the Petitioner ZOOOK as also pending oppositions.

12. Learned counsel contended that there is a clear violation of Rule 70(9)

of the Copyright Rules, 2013 (‘2013 Rules’) inasmuch as Respondent No.1

failed to notify the Petitioner, who had a direct interest in the impugned

registration since the work incorporated the registered mark of the

Petitioner. Respondent No.1 was well aware that the parties were already

embroiled in the opposition proceedings pertaining to the word mark

ZOOOK and label mark and application for registration of the

mark was withdrawn by Respondent No.1 on opposition by the

Petitioner. Significantly, label mark under opposition is similar to the artistic

work in the impugned copyright registration.

13. Counsel for Respondent No.1 opposed the petition. To begin with, it

was argued that Petitioner is not a ‘person aggrieved’ under Section 50 of

C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024 Page 10 of 18

1957 Act, which allows only a person whose rights are affected to seek

rectification and on this ground the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Copyright protection is independent of trademark rights and a trademark

proprietor cannot seek cancellation of registration of copyright in an artistic

work merely because his mark forms a part of the artistic work, so long as

the artistic work is original and has no similarity with any other work.

Likewise, reliance on trademark oppositions is irrelevant to copyright

rectification as both enactments i.e., 1999 Act and 1957 Act, operate in two

distinct fields.

14. It was argued that Section 50 empowers the High Court to rectify the

Copyright Register by expunging entries ‘wrongly made’ or remaining on

the Register. There is no averment that the entry was wrongly made or that

there was any procedural violation. Section 45 governs artistic work and

mandates that application for registration of copyright must be accompanied

by certificate from Registrar of Trade Marks that no identical or deceptively

trademark has been registered. In the present case, a valid Search Certificate

TMR-CC No. 120644 was issued by the Trade Marks Registrar confirming

that no identical/similar mark existed and hence, no infirmity can be found

with the action of Respondent No.2 in issuing copyright registration

certificate.

15. It was also argued that under Section 13(1)(a) of 1957 Act, only an

‘original’ artistic work is protectable and hence, Copyright Office is only to

examine the work in question for determining whether it satisfies the

originality requirement which does not imply that the work should be novel,

distinctive, innovative or unique. The artistic work of Respondent No.1

meets the required standard as the artistic work is original and has no

C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024 Page 11 of 18

similarity whatsoever with any work of the Petitioner and the word

ZOOOK, which is part of the artistic work is derived from the plant ZUK

from Nigeria, which conveys power and speed. Petitioner has placed no

evidence on record to show that the artistic work was copied by Respondent

No.1. Arguendo, even assuming there is similarity in the mark ZOOOK,

there is no likelihood of any consumer confusion since rival marks target

different consumers and markets. Petitioner’s products are electronic goods,

whereas Respondent No.1 uses ZOOOK for products relating to plant

growth and fertilizers. The goods being dissimilar, Petitioner cannot claim

any right to seek cancellation of Respondent No.1’s copyright registration.

In any event, the expression ZOOOK is a commercial identifier and not a

product of independent artistic skill and is separately incapable of copyright

protection. Petitioner’s attempt to monopolize a coined word through

copyright route is contrary to law and public policy. 1957 Act does not

confer a proprietary right in trade indicia or prevent others from using

similar words for bona fide trade purposes and the petition deserves to be

dismissed, being devoid of merit.

16. Arguing on behalf of Respondents No.2 and 3, Ms. Nidhi Raman,

CGSC submitted that the impugned registration certificate has been

correctly issued and there is no merit in the petition. Application for search

and issuance of certificate under Section 45(1) of 1957 Act was filed by

Respondent No.1 on 21.12.2022 before the Registrar of Trade Marks,

whereafter Examination-cum-Search Report dated 01.03.2023 was issued by

the Registrar citing certain conflicting marks to which reply was filed by

Respondent No.1 on 11.03.2022, clarifying the objections. Being satisfied

with the response and after ascertaining that no trademark identical or

C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024 Page 12 of 18

deceptively similar to impugned artistic work was registered under the 1999

Act, Registrar of Trade Marks issued the Search Certificate dated

26.10.2023 and it is thus wrong to allege that the certificate is wrongly

issued.

17. It was argued that Rule 70(9) of 2013 Rules provides for a

notification procedure for an applicant to formally serve a notice of the

application for registration of copyright to any person, who claims or has

interest in the subject matter of the copyright or disputes the rights of the

applicant to it. The phrase ‘the subject matter of the copyright’ clearly limits

the scope to the work or material for which copyright registration is sought,

such as literary, artistic or musical work. The word ‘it’ at the end of the

provision grammatically and by connotation refers only to the subject matter

of the copyright and since Petitioner does not claim similarity to any artistic

work it owns, Respondent No.1 was not obliged to notify the Petitioner

under the said Rule. A trademark proceeding relating to disputes of

trademarks cannot confer interest in the subject matter of the work under the

1957 Act. Respondent No.1 had served a notice to a party, namely, Parajiya

Kapil Parsottambhai, who had an interest in the subject matter of the

copyright and no further notice was required.

18. Heard learned counsels for the parties and examined their

submissions.

19. Indisputably, Petitioner has registration in the ZOOOK marks and the

earliest registration goes back to 07.11.2013 in the mark

, in which Petitioner also has copyright registration.

Petitioner has been using the ZOOOK marks since 2013 and over the years

C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024 Page 13 of 18

owing to extensive, continuous and uninterrupted use, has acquired

formidable goodwill and reputation in the mark, which is evident from the

sales figures and promotional expenses placed on record. The marks have

been advertised on different platforms, through print and electronic media as

also through social media platforms. Aggrieved by the copyright registration

in favour of Respondent No.1 in the artistic work , Petitioner

has filed this petition for cancellation thereof.

20. Section 45 of 1957 Act clearly provides that when any person seeks

copyright registration for artistic work, which is used or has the potential of

being used in relation to any goods or services, the application must be

accompanied by a certificate from Registrar of Trade Marks that no

trademark identical or deceptively similar to such artistic work has been

registered or applied for by anyone other than the applicant. The legislative

intent behind proviso to Section 45(1) is to ensure that the artistic work

sought to be registered does not infringe on any existing trademark. In

Marico Ltd. v. Mrs. Jagit Kaur, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8488, this Court

held that albeit trademarks and copyrights operate under different statutes,

since rights in the original artistic work could overlap with label marks

registered under the 1999 Act, legislature in its wisdom added the proviso.

In Hugo Boss (supra), Court observed that the intent of the proviso was to

prevent unscrupulous persons from copying label marks with the intent of

passing off and taking shelter under a false claim of ownership of copyright

in an artistic work. Referring to Section 50 of 1957 Act, Court also observed

that ‘person aggrieved’ is a person, who has real and tangible interest in the

C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024 Page 14 of 18

work or in the mark. In the said case, a petition was filed by HUGO BOSS

seeking rectification of the Register by removal of copyright registration

titled ‘ARAAS THE BOSS’. Contention of the Petitioner was that it is the

registered proprietor of trademarks HUGO BOSS and BOSS and other

BOSS formative marks first adopted in the year 1923 with an enviable

reputation and goodwill in the mark and the mark BOSS was registered in

several jurisdictions, including India. Referring to Section 45 of 1957 Act

and examining the contentions of Hugo Boss (supra), Court held that the

impugned artistic work was not original artistic work and primarily

comprised of the mark BOSS which did not belong to the contesting

Respondent and the colour scheme was also imitated.

21. In my considered view, the instant case is covered on all four corners

by the judgment of this Court in Hugo Boss (supra). It bears repetition to

state that unquestionably, Respondent No.1 had applied for registration of

the mark on 13.08.2019 in Class 01 and as can be seen, the device

subsumed the word ZOOOK. On opposition being filed by the Petitioner,

Respondent No.1 filed an application for withdrawal and the application was

treated as withdrawn on 13.12.2022 and this date is significant for the reason

Court shall advert to later. Respondent No.1 filed another application on

21.12.2022 for registration of word mark ZOOOK followed by an

application on the same day for mark (Packaging/Label).

C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024 Page 15 of 18

Petitioner filed Notices of Opposition on 30.09.2023 and both oppositions

are pending. It is significant for this case to note that when Respondent No.1

applied for Search Certificate on 21.12.2022 before the Registrar of Trade

Marks, Examination-cum-Search Report dated 01.03.2023 was issued citing

conflicting marks. This position flows from the written submissions of

Respondents No.2 and 3, who have also appended the report with the

submissions. The report refers to number of conflicting marks and amongst

them two are the device mark of the Petitioner in

Classes 13 and 35. There is no gainsaying that these marks were cited as

conflicting only because they were found to be deceptively similar this

exercise was carried out in light of the mandate of Section 45(1) of 1957

Act. It is also important to note that Respondent No.1 filed a response to this

report vide letter dated 11.03.2022. Be it noted that the letter bears the date

of 11.03.2022, but it was clarified during hearing that this was a

typographical error and the year would be’ 2023’ since the letter was in

response to letter dated 01.03.2023. In this reply, Respondent No.1

categorically stated that registration qua mark was pending. This

on the face of it was false as on 11.03.2023, since the application was

withdrawn on 13.12.2022 on opposition by the Petitioner. It be also noted

that while Respondent No.1 responded to the other cited marks stating that

they were abandoned or refused but gave no reply to the device mark

C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024 Page 16 of 18

of the Petitioner, knowing it had no answer.

Oblivious of the objections raised in the Examination-cum-Search Report

citing Petitioner’s mark as conflicting for some strange reason, which

Respondents No.2 and 3 have not been able to explain even today before

this Court, Search Certificate was issued on 26.10.2023 stating that there

was no registration of similar marks and this wrong certificate led to the

grant of the impugned copyright registration certificate. It is thus clear that

the start line of the journey for copyright registration was unfortunately

incorrect and the destination had to be wrong. The Search Report is thus

inaccurate and contrary to the Register of Trade Marks and this is enough to

set aside the impugned copyright registration.

22. Court also agrees with the Petitioner that the Petitioner is a ‘person

aggrieved’ under Section 50 of 1957 Act as being the registered owner and

prior user and prior adopter of the ZOOOK marks, Petitioner has a real and

tangible interest in the registered work, which evidently subsumes

Petitioner’s registered mark ZOOOK. In light of this, Petitioner is also right

that Respondent No.1 ought to have notified the Petitioner under Rule 70(9)

of 2013 Rules as the Petitioner does have an interest in the subject matter

and this requirement becomes even more pronounced in the present case

since Respondent No.1 was fully aware that Petitioner was disputing its very

claim over the mark ZOOOK and one opposition had succeeded and two are

pending. Non-compliance of Rule 70(9) undermines the procedural integrity

of the process and makes the copyright registration vulnerable. Non-

issuance of notice has also resulted in a situation, where Petitioner has been

deprived of its valuable right to contest the registration on legitimate

C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024 Page 17 of 18

grounds. This procedural violation also vitiates the impugned registration.

23. For all the aforesaid reasons, Court finds that the grant of copyright

registration in favour of Respondent No.1 is procedurally flawed, both

owing to non-compliance of Rule 70(9) as also rendering a Search

Certificate (TM-C) on 26.10.2023 contrary to the Trade Marks Register and

deserves to be revoked, entailing fresh consideration of the application.

24. Accordingly, the impugned copyright registration in the artistic

work/label/packaging titled ZOOOK under registration no.

A-153061/2024 in favour of Respondent No.1 is revoked/cancelled and the

Search Certificate dated 26.10.2023 is also set aside. Original application

filed by Respondent No.1 is revived for fresh consideration by Respondent

No.2. Since inaccuracy and discrepancy has crept in the procedure from the

stage after issuance of Examination-cum-Search Report dated 01.03.2023, it

is from this stage that consideration will commence. Respondent No.3 shall

consider the reply of Respondent No.1 dated 11.03.2023 including the status

of registration of its mark since in the reply it was stated that

registration qua this mark was pending as also the cited device mark

of the Petitioner. Thereafter, a fresh Search Certificate

will be issued by Respondent No.3 and sent to Respondent No.2 who will

then consider the application of Respondent No.1 for registration of

C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024 Page 18 of 18

copyright in the artistic work after granting opportunity to

the Petitioner to file its objections/written submissions and to Respondent

No.1 to file its written submissions. Both parties will be granted opportunity

of hearing and decision will be taken within an outer limit of four months

from today. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on

the merits of the case.

25. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

JYOTI SINGH, J.

MAY 29 , 2026/YA