CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 1 of 25

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 17.02.2026

Judgment delivered on: 10.03.2026

CO(COMM.IPD-CR) 18/2023 & I.A. 23338/2023

HEINEKEN ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD. .....Petitioner

versus

MR. VIJAY KESHAV WAGH AND ORS. .....Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Ms. Priya Adlakha and Ms. Urvi Nama,

Advocates.

For the Respondents : Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Advocate for R-1.

Mr. Sumit Nagpal, SPC with Mr. Kunal Khurana,

Advocate for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

J U D G M E N T

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 50 of the Copyright

Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ ) seeking rectification of the

entry in the Register of Copyrights with respect to the impugned copyright

registration for the Artistic Work titled “SHREE SAKSHAT” bearing

Registration No.A-116796/2017 dated 04.05.2017.

2. The petitioner i.e. Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. claims to be

registered under the laws of Singapore and is an internationally recognized

and global leader in the business of manufacture and supply of beverages,

including but not limited to beer.

CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 2 of 25

3. Petitioner claims that its string of world renowned beverages

includes the 1932, Singapore-born lager beer under the trademark

“TIGER”. Petitioner claims that the said beer has been launched in a variety

of flavours namely TIGER ORIGINAL, TIGER BLACK, TIGER WHITE,

TIGER CRYSTAL, TIGER RADLER & TIGER SOJU INFUSED

LAGER. Petitioner claims that TIGER beer is one of the premium brands

across Asia and in many countries of the world. The label associated with

TIGER beer is claimed to have evolved over the years and pictorially

depicted as under

:-

4. The aforesaid logos are said to be the outcome of creative

endeavours of the petitioner’s design team and constitute original artistic

CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 3 of 25

works of which the petitioner is the first owner of the copyright. Though

the said logos were created in Singapore, however, by virtue of Berne

Convention, copyright thereof would extend to all signatory countries

including India. The logo which is subject matter of the present petition was

first published as early as October, 2005, and is characterized by an artistic

depiction of a Tiger with an outstretched left front paw, an open mouth

where its teeth are visible, and a head that is turned towards the left. The

tail is upturn and curled towards the right. A mane is visible around the

Tiger’s face and its eyes are not discernable. The pictorial depiction of the

Tiger logos are reproduced hereunder:

5. The international registration enjoy ed by the petitioner and as

maintained in the global brand database by World Intellectual Property

Organization (hereinafter referred to as “WIPO”) is annexed as Document-

12 to the petition at page 180 of the paperbook, which indicates the trans-

border registration of the TIGER logo and its formative device and word

marks. The same are not being reproduced hereunder for the sake of brevity

and run into almost 180 registrations worldwide. Similarly, the registrations

of the mark TIGER dated 05.12.2005 in Australia, China, Germany, Italy,

Japan etc., are placed in the documents from page 192 onwards of the

paperbook.

6. The subject matter mark of the petitioner registered in Singapore

appearing at page 240 is extracted hereunder:

CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 4 of 25

Similar registrations in Singapore follow from page 249 onwards of

the documents annexed to the petition.

7. The advertisements depicting the TIGER BEER logo are also placed

on record at page 64 of the paperbook, which is the website of the

CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 5 of 25

petitioner, and at page 69 of the paperbook, which is a third-party website.

The third-party website indicates the history of the TIGER logo

commencing from the year 1932 onwards till date. Extracts of both the

websites are reproduced hereunder:

CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 6 of 25

8. Petitioner claims that in April, 2008, it entered the Indian market

with its TIGER beer through its Indian subsidiary, Asia Pacific Breweries

(India) Private Limited using the logo “”. Though it is claimed that

the TIGER beer was available in India even prior to the year 2008 when it

CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 7 of 25

was launched. To support the claim that the TIGER beer was launched in

the year 2008, the coverage of such launch captured on photographs is

enclosed in Document-9, some of which are reproduced hereunder:

CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 8 of 25

9. The petitioner exercises its statutory rights over the TIGER logo in

India, under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 on the basis of numerous

registrations commencing from 02.01.2006, which is the subject matter of

the present lis . The said logo registrations are reproduced hereunder:

CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 9 of 25

10. It is stated that serial nos.1 and 2 of the aforesaid table refers to the

registrations in India, however, the registrations mentioned at serial nos.3 to

6 are international registrations to which, India too, is a party. The

CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 10 of 25

application for registration of the TIGER logo device mark submitted on

02.01.2006 with user detail of 02.01.2006 for Class- 32 (Beer, Ale, Lager,

Stout and Mont Beverages) alongwith the image is extracted hereunder:

CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 11 of 25

CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 12 of 25

11. Petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned copyrighted work

of the respondent no.1 whereby the device mark of the TIGER has been

unauthorizedly adopted by respondent no.1. The impugned copyrighted

work is reproduced hereunder:

12. Petitioner claims that the application for copyright registration of the

impugned artistic work was filed on 02.03.2016, which was well after the

date of first publication of petitioner’s artistic work. It is claimed that the

impugned artistic work clearly incorporates an identical artistic work of a

mark TIGER, which belongs to the petitioner. Petitioner also claims that

merely by adding a ‘V’ in the backdrop of the TIGER, and adding the

words ‘SHRI’ (in Hindi) on top and ‘SAKSHAT’ (in English) at the bottom

of the ‘V’ do not substantially change the character or nature of work, and

that it infringes the petitioner’s TIGER logo/mark.

13. Aggrieved by the above infringement of the copyrighted works by

respondent no.1, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER :-

CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 13 of 25

14. Ms. Priya Adlakha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that the right of the respondent no.1 to file its reply was closed by

the Joint Registrar (Judicial) vide order dated 17.11.2025. She further

submitted that even written submissions in respect of issue on law

have

never been filed by the respondent no.1. In such circumstances, she would

submit that since there is no pleading objecting to or refuting the averments

contained in the present petition, coupled with the fact that there is no

traverse to the facts stated by the petitioner, such facts, statements and

documents placed on record in support of the present petition ought to be

deemed to have been admitted and a direction for rectification under

Section 50 of the Act ought to be passed to the extent of expunging the

impugned mark of the respondent no.1 from the Register of the Copyrights

.

15. Ms. Adlakha, at the outset, submitted that the respondent no.1

malafide, filed an application dated 02.03.2016 seeking registration of its

artistic work as an author on the basis that the work was unpublished,

which is contrary to the records. She stated that the procedure prescribed

under the Act, on such application is mentioned in Section 45 of the Act. A

Search Certificate ought to be obtained before the copyright sought for is

registered. Learned counsel submitted that curiously, the Search Certificate

dated 18.01.2016 issued by respondent no.3/Registrar of Trade Marks is

conspicuous by the absence of mention of petitioner’s logo which would

have indicated that the mark of respondent no.1 is clearly identical or

deceptively similar to the original artistic work of the petitioner. She would

contend that having regard to the illegality committed by the Trade Marks

Registry, the petition ought to be allowed and the copyright registration in

favour of respondent no.1 ought to be expunged from the Register of

CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 14 of 25

Copyrights.

16. Learned counsel would next contend that respondent no.1 is a

Trademark Squatter, and cannot be permitted to misuse the registrations.

She would contend that the respondent no.1 has applied for the trademark

registration of the identical mark across all 45 Classes. As an example to

demonstrate the malafide of respondent no.1, she drew the attention of this

Court to the trademark application no.2979728 for goods in Class-0 1 dated

09.06.2015 at page 105 of the petition, claiming the user detail of

21.05.2015 for the very same artistic work, which is now sought to be

registered under the Act, to submit that it is contrary to, and violative of the

declaration in the copyright application dated 02.01.2016 whereby

respondent no.1 had declared that the mark is unpublished. She contended

that in case the declaration was true and the artistic work was unpublished

as on 02.01.2016, the trademark application for the very same mark applied

for on 09.06.2015 would establish that the declaration is false. For this

reason too, she forcefully contended that the impugned copyright

registration must go. She also submitted that having regard to the conduct

of respondent no.1, he must be declared to be a Trademark Squatter.

17. She relied on the order dated 19.10.2023 in C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM)

225/2023 and C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM)226/2023 passed by this Court

between the same parties whereby in para 6 of the said order, in respect of

the very same trademark, based on the impugned artistic work in Class -32

and 33, respondent no.1 was directed to maintain status quo and no transfer

or license in respect of the said registration or assignment was permitted.

18. Learned counsel also referred to and relied on Section 13(1)(a),

Section 17 and proviso to Section 45(1) of the Act in support of the

CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 15 of 25

aforesaid contentions. She contended that the impugned registration had

been granted in contravention of the aforesaid provisions including Rule

70(6), particularly clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of the Copyright Rules, 2013

on the ground that the Search Certificate dated 18.01.2016, issued by

respondent no.3 under Rule 24(3) of the Trademark Rules, 2017 did not cite

the prior existing trademark of the petitioner nor the pending applications.

Thus, the impugned registration being erroneous and faulty, ought to be

expunged from the Register of Copyrights.

19. She relied upon the following judgments in support of her aforesaid

arguments:-

a) Marico Ltd. vs. Mrs. Jagit Kaur, (2018) SCC OnLine Del

8488;

b) . Polo/Lauren Company LP vs. Sandeep Arora & Anr.,

(2022) SCC OnLine Del 341;

c) BPI Sports LLC vs. Saurabh Gulati & Anr., (2023) SCC

OnLine Del 2424;

d) Manju Singal Proprietor Singla Food Products vs. Deepak

Kumar & Anr., (2023) SCC OnLine Del 5503;

e) Hugo Boss Trademark Management GMBH & Company KG

vs. Sandeep Arora trading as Arras the Boss & Ors., (2023) SCC

OnLine Del 7956.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT :-

20. Per contra, Ms. Apoorva Sharma, learned counsel appeared on

behalf of the respondent no.1 and stated that it is well settled that the comparison of two logos have to be seen as a whole and in a composite manner and not in bits and pieces. She also submitted that there is no

CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 16 of 25

exclusivity attached to the copyrights in the TIGER logo mark since there

are many similar brands and trademarks using the word “TIGER” or the

logo of a “TIGER”, and as such, the purported original artistic work

existing in the TIGER logo stands diluted. She would contend that in such

circumstances, the original artistic work of respondent no.1 containing the

TIGER logo with the alphabet ‘V’ in the background when compared in the

composite manner with that of the petitioner, clear distinction can be drawn

by any person merely by looking at it.

21. In support of the aforesaid contention, she also relied upon Section

50 of the Act, to submit that the prayer as made in the present petition can

only be acceded to, if any entry is wrongly made, which is clearly not made

out by the petitioner. Predicated thereon, she would contend that the

petition be dismissed.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION :-

22. At the outset, it would be relevant to straightaway compare both the

marks/logos in the case at hand. The comparative table is reproduced hereunder:

Petitioner’s Logos Respondent No.1’s impugned logo

CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 17 of 25

23. A close scrutiny of both the logos clearly evidence the fact that the

TIGER logo of the petitioner has been copied in totality, in that, the Tiger

with an outstretched left front paw, an open mouth where its teeth are

visible, and a head that is turned towards the left; the tail is upturned and

curled towards the right; a mane is visible around the Tiger’s face, and its

eyes are not discernable, is clearly described by the petitioner. The mere

placement of the letter ‘V’ in the backdrop with the letters “SHRI” (in

Hindi) and “SAKSHAT” (in English) placed at the top and bottom of the

logo respectively, would not, ipso facto, diminish the effect or the

essentiality of the TIGER logo. In other words, the TIGER logo is the

dominant feature or the prominent aspect of the entire mark/label of

respondent no.1.

24. Another fact which has not been denied or rebutted by the respondent

no.1 is that the petitioner has multiple registrations for the logo/mark

TIGER both in India and in other foreign jurisdictions as detailed in paras 9

and 10 of the petition. This TIGER logo has been registered in Singapore

on 06.04.2006, and continues to be valid till date. Same logo has also been

registered in India vide the Certificate No.1611074 dated 19.07.2017. The

said Certificate and the label is reproduced in the preceding paragraphs.

25. The petitioner has asserted that the TIGER logos were the outcome

of creative endeavours of its design team which would constitute original

artistic work, whereby the petitioner would be the first owner and as per the

Berne Convention, such copyright would extend to all signatory countries,

including India. This assertion is duly supported by the law laid down in

Marico (supra), particularly in paragraph 11, whereby this Court has

CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 18 of 25

observed that though the trademarks and copyright operate under different

statutes, since the rights in original artistic work could overlap with the

label mark registrable under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the proviso to

Section 45 in the Act has been engrafted. This Court in Polo/Lauren

Company LP (supra) , Manju Singal (supra) , and Hugo Boss (supra)

reiterated the same ratio. In other words, in cases where there is an overlap

of the nature like in the present case, the proviso to Section 45 of the Act

carves out a procedure where the original artistic work in a mark registrable

under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 may also be protected as against a person

or an entity, which may be seeking registration of a similar artistic work

under the Act. One can perceive that the proviso is inserted to prevent such

mischief. Having regard to the fact that the TIGER logos have been

registered as trademarks in several countries of the world in various classes

with dates of registration/use, the same could constitute as dates of

publications for the said logos in the context of the Act.

26. In such circumstances, the application of the respondent no.1 seeking

registration of its mark/label reproduced above does not appear to be

bonafide. This is for the reason that the Search Certificate dated 18.01.2016

issued by the Trade Marks Registry is conspicuous by the absence of the

prior registered TIGER logo of the petitioner, which was ordinarily

warranted as per the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Thus, not providing the

correct information to the Copyright Registrar is a failure on the part of the

Trade Marks Registry. Even if one were to assume that the mark/label is

not identical, the deceptive similarity between the two marks/logo cannot

be undermined. In fact, it appears that the TIGER logo of the petitioner has

simply been lifted and pasted in its entirety by respondent no.1 on its

CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 19 of 25

mark/logo. Thus, the mandate upon the Trade Marks Registry to cite the

TIGER logo of the petitioner was not properly discharged by the Registry.

27. In the above context, it would be appropriate to refer to Sections 13,

17 and 45(1) of the Act read with Rule 70 of the Copyright Rules, 2013 and

are extracted hereunder:

SECTION 13:

“13. Works in which copyright subsists.— (1) Subject to the provisions of this

section and the other provisions of this Act, copyright shall subsist throughout

India in the following classes of works, that is to say,—

(a) original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works;

(b) cinematograph films; and

(c) [sound recording].

(2) Copyright shall not subsist in any work specified in sub- section (1), other

than a work to which the provisions of section 40 or section 41 apply, unless,—

(i) in the case of a published work, the work is first published in India, or

where the work is first published outside India, the author is at the date

of such publication, or in a case where the author was dead at that date,

was at the time of his death, a citizen of India;

(ii) in the case of an unpublished work other than a 2 [work of

architecture], the author is at the date of the making of the work a citizen

of India or domiciled in India; and

(iii) in the case of 2 [work of architecture], the work is located in India.

Explanation.— In the case of a work of joint authorship, the conditions

conferring copyright specified in this sub- section shall be satisfied by all the

authors of the work.

(3) Copyright shall not subsist—

(a) in any cinematograph film if a substantial part of the film is an

infringement of the copyright in any other work;

(b) in any 1 [sound recording] made in respect of a literary, dramatic or

musical work, if in making the 1 [sound recording], copyright in such

work has been infringed.

(4) The copyright in a cinematograph film or a [sound recording] shall not

affect the separate copyright in any work in respect of which or a substantial

part of which, the film, or, as the case may be, the [sound recording] is made.

(5) In the case of [work of architecture], copyright shall subsist only in the

artistic character and design and shall not extend to processes or methods of

CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 20 of 25

construction.”

SECTION 17:

“17. First owner of copyright.— Subject to the provisions of this Act, the author of a

work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein:

Provided that—

(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or artistic work made by the author in

the course of his employment by the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine

or similar periodical under a contract of service or apprenticeship, for

the purpose of publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar

periodical, the said proprietor shall, in the absence of any agreement to

the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright in the work in so far as

the copyright relates to the publication of the work in any newspaper,

magazine or similar periodical, or to the reproduction of the work for the

purpose of its being so published, but in all other respects the author

shall be the first owner of the copyright in the work;

(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), in the case of a photograph taken,

or a painting or portrait drawn, or an engraving or a cinematograph film

made, for valuable consideration at the instance of any person, such

person shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first

owner of the copyright therein;

(c) in the case of a work made in the course of the author’s employment

under a contract of service or apprenticeship, to which clause (a) or

clause (b) does not apply, the employer shall, in the absence of any

agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein;

[(cc) in the case of any address or speech delivered in public, the person

who has delivered such address or speech or if such person has delivered

such address or speech on behalf of any other person, such other person

shall be the first owner of the copyright therein notwithstanding that the

person who delivers such address or speech, or, as the case may be, the

person on whose behalf such address or speech is delivered, is employed by

any other person who arranges such address or speech or on whose behalf

or premises such address or speech is delivered;]

(d) in the case of a Government work, Government shall, in the absence

of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright

therein;

[(dd) in the case of a work made or first published by or under the

direction or control of any public undertaking, such public undertaking

CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 21 of 25

shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner

of the copyright therein.Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause

and section 28A, “public undertaking” means—

(i) an undertaking owned or controlled by Government; or

(ii) a Government company as defined in section 617 of the

Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);or

(iii) a body corporate established by or under any Central, Provincial

or State Act;]

(e) in the case of a work to which the provisions of section 41 apply, the

international organization concerned shall be the first owner of the

copyright therein.

[Provided that in case of any work incorporated in a cinematograph work, nothing

contained in clauses (b) and (c) shall affect the right of the author in the work referred

to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 13.]”

SECTION 45:

“45. Entries in Register of Copyrights.— (1) The author or publisher of, or the owner

of or other person interested in the copyright in, any work may make an application in

the prescribed form accompanied by the prescribed fee to the Registrar of Copyrights

for entering particulars of the work in the Register of Copyrights:

[Provided that in respect of an artistic work which is used or is capable of being

used in [relation to any goods or services], the application shall include a statement to

that effect and shall be accompanied by a certificate from the Registrar of Trade Marks

referred to in [section 3 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (47 of 1999)], to the effect that no

trade mark identical with or deceptively similar to such artistic work has been

registered under that Act in the name of, or that no application has been made under

that Act for such registration by, any person other than the applicant.]”

xx xx xx

RULE 70 OF THE COPYRIGHT RULES, 2013:

“70. Application for Registration of Copyright.- (1) Every application for copyright

shall be made registration of in Form-XIV and every application for particulars of

registration of changes in the copyright entered in the Register of Copyright shall be

made in Form-XV.

(2) Every such application shall be in respect of one work only, and shall be

CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 22 of 25

accompanied by the fee specified in the Second Schedule in this behalf.

(3) Every application should be signed only by the applicant, who may be an

author or owner of right. If the application is submitted by the owner of copyright, it

shall be enclosed with an original copy of no objection certificate issued by the author

in his favour.

(4) Every application for registration of an unpublished work shall be

accompanied by two copies of the work.

(5) Every application for registration of a computer programme shall be

accompanied by the source and object code.

(6) Every application for registration in respect of an artistic work which is used

or is capable of being used in relation to any goofs, such application shall include a

statement to that effect and shall be accompanied by a certificate from the Register of

Trade Marks referred to in section 3 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, to the effect that no

trade mark identical with or deceptively similar to such artistic work has been

registered under the Act in the name of, or that no application has been made under that

Act for such registration by, any person other than the applicant.

(7) Every application for registration in respect of an artistic work which is

capable of being registered as a design under the Designs Act, 2000, such application

shall be accompanied by a statement in the form of an affidavit containing the following,

namely :-

(a) it has not been registered under the Designs Act 2000; and

(b) it has not been applied to an article through industrial process and

reproduced more than fifty times.

(8) Every such application can be filed in the Copyright Office by person or by

post or by online filing facility as provided on the website of the Copyright Office.

(9) The person applying for registration shall give notice of his application to

every person who claims or has any interest in the subject-matter of the copyright or

disputes the rights of the applicant to it.

(10) If no objection to such registration is received by the Register of Copyrights

within thirty days of the receipt of the application, the Register of Copyrights shall, if

satisfied about the correctness of the particulars given in the application, enter such

particulars in the Register of Copyrights.

(11) If the Registrar of Copyrights received any objections for such registration

within the time specified in sub-rule (7), or, if he or she is not satisfied about the

correctness of the particulars given in the application, he or she may, after holding such

inquiry as he or she deems fit, such particulars of the work in the Register of Copyrights

as he or she considers necessary.

(12) The Registrar of Copyrights shall give an opportunity of hearing before

rejecting any application filed for registration of any work.

CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 23 of 25

(13) The process of registration is deemed to be completed only when a copy of

the entries made in the Register of Copyrights is signed and issued by Registrar of

Copyrights or by Deputy Registrar of Copyrights to whom such authority is delegated.

(14) The Registrar of Copyrights shall, as soon as may be, send, wherever

practicable, a copy of the entries made in the Register of Copyrights to the parties

concerned.”

Section 13 of the Act stipulates the nature of works that may be

registrable under the Act throughout India which may be original literary,

dramatic, musical and artistic works; cinematograph films; and sound

recording. Section 17 provides as to who would be the first owner of the

copyright in the artistic works contemplated under Section 13. Section 45

prescribes the procedure for registration of such works as defined in Section

13 and conferred upon such owners as specified in Section 17 of the Act.

The proviso to Section 45(1) read with the procedure prescribed in Rule 70

of the Copyright Rules, 2013 provides for steps an intending applicant is to

follow and the manner in which the Registrar shall conduct an “inquiry”

before grant of registration to such intending applicant and is significant to

consider. Read together and harmoniously, it is manifest that the applicant

has to issue a statement that no trademark identical with or deceptively

similar to such artistic work has been registered under the Act in the name

of, or that no application has been made under that Act for such registration

by any person other than the applicant. This coupled with the mandate upon

the Trade Marks Registry to issue a Certificate of identical nature, which is

a necessary concomitant to fulfil the laudatory purpose of insertion of

proviso to Section 45 of the Act. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 70 of the Rules, 2013,

necessitates such declaration by the applicant and mandates the Certificate

from the Trade Marks Registry. Reading in any other manner would defeat

CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 24 of 25

the purpose and intent of the Legislature in engrafting proviso to Section

45(1) of the Act and Rule 70 of the Rules, 2013, particularly, sub-rule (6)

thereof. Clearly, the intent is to obviate mischief.

28. In the present case, since there was a failure by the Trade Marks

Registry, the Registrar of Copyrights did not have the opportunity to

examine and conduct a proper inquiry as to whether the respondent no.1’s

work was original artistic work or not or whether there is already a

registered trademark or registered copyright which may be identical or

deceptively similar. Had the Trade Marks Registry been careful and vigilant

in complying with the mandate of the Act, this situation, perhaps, would not

have arisen.

29. It would also be significant to note that the respondent no.1 in his

application for registration of the copyright in its artistic work dated

04.05.2017 declared that the work was “Unpublished” while in the Trade

Marks Application No.2979728 dated 09.06.2015 claimed the user since

21.05.2015, which is contrary to and clearly violative of the declaration

furnished before the Copyrights Registry. Thus, the declaration furnished

by respondent no.1 is false to his knowledge. It is, thus, apparent that the

adoption of the TIGER logo/mark by the respondent no.1 was not bonafide

apart from the fact that evidently, the artistic work claimed to be original by

respondent no.1 is itself a copy and not an original work, which would

bestow any right upon respondent no.1 as an owner under the Act.

30. That too, when read with the fact that the respondent no.1 furnished a

false declaration to the Copyright Registrar that the work was

“Unpublished”, manifestly discloses the malafide . Thus, it is clear that the

intention of the respondent no.1 is not bonaf ide in seeking registration of

CO(COMM.IPD-CR)18/2023 Page 25 of 25

copyright in the impugned artistic work under the Act.

31. Another contention of the petitioner was that the respondent no.1 be

declared a Trademark Squatter. However, upon perusal of the petition, it

appears that the petition is bereft of any such grounds inasmuch as it does

not contain any averment or document to substantiate the said contention.

Thus, this Court is not persuaded to render any opinion in the present case.

32. On an overall examination and appreciation of the facts and law, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the registration granted to the

respondent no.1 vide the Registration Certificate dated 04.05.2017 for the

impugned artistic work cannot be permitted to continue in the Register of

Copyrights and hence, respondent no.2/Registrar of Copyrights is directed

to remove the impugned artistic work of the respondent no.1 from the

Register of Copyrights. The compliance be reported within four (4) weeks

from the date of receipt of this order.

33. In view of the aforesaid, the rectification petition stands disposed of

along with all the pending applications, if any.

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

FEBRUARY 12, 2026/rl