Copyright Registration Cannot Be Granted Automatically If No Objection Is Filed: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has recently held that copyright registration cannot be granted merely because no objection is received within the statutory period, holding that the Registrar of Copyright must independently verify the correctness of the application before granting registration.

Interpreting the Registrar's obligations under the Copyright Rules in cases where no objection is received to a registration application, Justice Arindam Mukherjee observed, “On a conjoint reading of the two parts of Rule 70(10) with the two parts of Rule 70(11) of the 2013 Rules, the legislative intent is crystal clear. Whether there is an objection or not, the registration is subject to the substantive satisfaction of the Registrar of Copyright as to the correctness of the particulars of the application. .”

The ruling came in a rectification application filed by Rajkumar Aggarwal, proprietor of Petro Product, seeking cancellation of a copyright registration granted in favour of Nand Kishore Bhimsariya.

Aggarwal claimed he had obtained copyright registration for the artistic work in 2009. He said Bhimsariya was aware of this, having previously unsuccessfully sought rectification against that registration.

According to Aggarwal, despite such knowledge, Bhimsariya applied for registration without notifying him, though Aggarwal was a person interested in the subject matter. As a result, Aggarwal said he remained unaware of the application and could not file any objection within the prescribed 30-day period.

Aggarwal argued that Bhimsariya had failed to comply with mandatory statutory requirements, including notifying interested persons before seeking registration. He also contended that the Registrar of Copyright had failed to independently verify the correctness of the application before granting registration.

Bhimsariya did not appear before the Court. However, records before the Copyright Board showed that he had admitted the error lay with the Registrar in not putting Aggarwal on notice.

The Registrar, however, argued that once no objection was received within 30 days of the application, there was no option but to enter the particulars in the copyright register.

The Court rejected this interpretation, holding that rules framed under a statute carry the force of law and must be mandatorily followed.

Justice Mukherjee held that the absence of objections was only one part of the registration framework and did not displace the Registrar's separate obligation to independently satisfy himself about the correctness of the application.

The Court observed that if a person applying for registration deliberately fails to notify an interested party, that party may never become aware of the application and therefore be unable to object within the stipulated period. In such a situation, the Registrar's independent scrutiny serves as an important safeguard.

The Court found that the Registrar had not even checked the copyright register to verify whether an earlier registration already existed in Aggarwal's favour. Had such an exercise been undertaken, the dispute could have been avoided at the administrative stage itself.

“This failure on the part of the Registrar has opened the gate to the petitioner to challenge the order only on jurisdictional ground thereby burdened the Court with an additional litigation which may not have arisen if the Registrar had carried out the exercise of substantive satisfaction as required under Rules 70(10) and 70(11).,” the court observed.

Holding that mandatory requirements had not been complied with by both Bhimsariya and the Registrar, the Court set aside the registration granted to Bhimsariya, directed the Registrar to remove the entry from the database and the copyright register, and rejected the underlying application.

The Court clarified that the cancellation would not prevent Bhimsariya from applying afresh after complying with all statutory requirements.

For Applicant: Senior Advocate Sayantan Basu, Advocate Tanmoy Roy,

For Respondent No. 2: Advocates Sunil Kr. Singhania, Asit De