Delhi High Court Sets Aside Copyright Registration For 'Radhey Radhey Barsane Wali Radhey'

The Delhi High Court on 8 September set aside a 2020 copyright registration for the sound recording “Radhey Radhey Barsane Wali Radhey” after finding that the Registrar had granted the registration without prior notice to a rival claimant.

Justice Jyoti Singh allowed the rectification petition filed by Vipul Music Company, a proprietorship firm of Santosh Goswami, and directed fresh consideration of the respondent's application after allowing the petitioner to file objections. The Bench held:

“In light of the undisputed fact that prior to the impugned registration of the sound recording in favour of Respondent No. 2, notice was not issued to the Petitioner under Rule 16(3) of 1958 Rules, which is pari materia to Rule 70(9) of 2013 Rules, this petition is partially allowed...”

According to the petitioner's pleadings, Goswami claimed copyright over the bhajan “Radha Naam Sang Brij 84 Kosh Yatra”, which he created in 2006-07 and registered with the Copyright Office in 2008.

Vipul Music Company said it had enforced its rights against infringers since 2009, including through a YouTube channel with over 57 million subscribers. It alleged that the respondent obtained registration of the impugned sound recording despite knowing about its prior rights, after filing a counter-notification against the petitioner's takedown request on YouTube.

Separately, a related suit seeking permanent injunction is pending before the Tis Hazari Courts.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Registrar did not issue notice under Rule 16(3) of the 1958 Copyright Rules, which is pari materia to Rule 70(9) of the 2013 Copyright Rules, before granting the registration. Further that this violated the requirement to notify any person claiming an interest in or disputing rights over the copyrighted work.

Counsel for the respondent, on instructions, “fairly and candidly” did not dispute the absence of notice and consented to a remand for fresh consideration.

The Court set aside the 2020 registration and directed the Registrar to treat the respondent's original application as revived. It clarified that it had “not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all rights and contentions of the parties are left open.”

The Bench allowed the petitioner six weeks to file objections before the Registrar of Copyrights and gave the respondent two weeks thereafter to respond. It directed the Registrar of Copyrights to adjudicate the application in accordance with law and take a decision within eight weeks from the date of filing of the response.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition.

For Petitioner: Advocates Kapil Midha, Rahul Dubey and Shagun Garg