Delhi High Court Sets Aside Copyright Refusal After Registrar Equated 'Person Aggrieved' With 'Person Interested'

The Delhi High Court has set aside an order refusing copyright registration to Fornnax Technology Private Limited for its artistic work titled “Cutting Chamber Part of Secondary Shredder R-4000 Front View.”

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the Registrar of Copyrights had “imported the meaning ascribed to “person aggrieved” envisaged in Section 50 of the Act to be similar to or equivalent of “person interested” contemplated in Section 45(1) read with Rule 70 of the Rules; and (ii) that apart, it is admitted by the respondents that they are not the “person interested” in which case, whether their role would commence post the process of Section 50 of the Act or at the stage of Section 45 of the Act read with Rule 70 of the Rules, has not been dealt appropriately by the Registrar in the impugned order."

Fornnax had objected to the opposition filed by third parties. It argued that they were not “persons interested” under Rule 70 of the Copyright Rules and were therefore not entitled to oppose the application at the pre-registration stage.

The Court noted that Section 45 governs applications for registration. Section 50 operates after registration in rectification proceedings. It recorded that it was admitted that the respondents were not “persons interested.” The Registrar had not properly dealt with whether their opposition was maintainable at that stage.

The High Court also found fault with the Registrar's reliance on electronic material to invoke Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. Section 15(2) provides that copyright in an artistic work ceases if a design derived from it is applied industrially to more than 50 articles.

Fornnax stated that it had manufactured approximately 29 to 32 units of the relevant products. The Registrar, however, relied on YouTube videos, PR articles, and website material suggesting more than 100 installations to conclude that the bar under Section 15(2) was attracted.

The court recorded that such material was accepted on the date of hearing without being furnished to Fornnax or giving it an opportunity to rebut the same.

Holding that the matter required fresh examination, the Court quashed the January 28, 2026 order and remitted the case for a fresh consideration under Section 72 of the Act.

It clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits and directed that the applications be placed before an officer other than the one who had passed the earlier order.