The case of Copyright Rectification and challenges around it.

Japan Tobacco Inc. & Anr. v. The Central Wearhouse & Anr.
C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 814/2022
Delhi High Court
Tushar Rao Gedela J.
Judgment delivered 05.10.2026

Facts of the Case:
The present petition has been filed under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, seeking
rectification of the entry in the Register of Copyrights with respect to the impugned copyright
registration bearing Registration No. A-54242/97 dated 22.10.1997. The petitioners claimed
ownership of various ‘CAMEL’ artworks/trademarks used in relation to tobacco products, readymade garments, bags, belts, footwear and headgear. The petitioners asserted that the
impugned copyrighted work was purportedly authored by Mrs. Veena R. Hinduja (respondent) in 1992 and that the respondent had copied their significantly prior artworks/trademarks. The petitioners sought removal of the impugned copyright registration from the Register of Copyrights.

Issues:

1. Whether the petitioners established that they were the ‘First Owner’ of the ‘Original
   Artistic Work’ in the mark ‘CAMEL’ or ‘CAMEL COLLECTION’ under Section 17 of
   the Copyright Act, 1957.
2. Whether the impugned copyright registration was liable to be removed from the Register
   of Copyrights under Section 50 of the Act.
3. Whether the alleged violation of Section 45(1) of the Act read with Rule 70 of the
   Copyright Rules, 2013, warranted rectification.
   Arguments Petitioners:
4. The petitioners contended that respondent no.1 had copied their ‘CAMEL’
   artworks/trademarks without any authorisation.
5. They relied upon Section 40 of the Act and the International Copyright Order, 1999, to
   contend that the publication of the artwork in any other convention country is sufficient
   to enforce copyrights in India.
6. The petitioners contended that the impugned artwork lacked originality and that
   respondent no.1 was not an ‘Author’ as defined under Section 2(d)(iii) of the Act.
7. They argued that respondent no.1 had failed to establish who, how, where and when the artistic work was conceived and executed.
8. The petitioners contended that the mandatory Clearance Certificate under Section 45(1)
   of the Act was neither issued by respondent no.2 nor obtained by respondent no.1

Respondents’ Arguments:

1. The respondent contended that respondent no.1 was a rightful proprietor of the copyright
   in the ‘CAMEL COLLECTION’ label registered under the Act in 1997, which was first
   published in 1992.
2. The respondent relied upon copyright and trademark registrations, sales invoices and
   advertisements to establish its claim.
3. The respondent contended that the adoption and use of the label ‘CAMEL
   COLLECTION’ in 1992 was honest and bona fide.
4. The respondent argued that the petitioners had not placed on record any proof to
   demonstrate that they had made any sale of readymade garments in India under the
   alleged trademark.
5. The respondent contended that the petitioners were not ‘persons aggrieved’ within the
   meaning of Section 50 of the Act and that the petition ought to be dismissed.

The Court’s reasoning:

1. Original artistic work and first ownership:
   The court observed that Principally, the essential or core issue in deciding copyright issues is the establishment of ‘Original Artistic Work. The Court further observed thus, it is unambiguous that an individual or an entity claiming copyrights in an ‘Original Artistic Work’ has to necessarily establish the fact of being the ‘First Owner’ in such copyright. The Court held that mere registration of a mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, may lend some credibility, yet, that by itself would not be sufficient to establish the owner of the trademark as the ‘First Owner’ of the copyrights in the artistic work embodied therein. The Court further stated Section 17 of the Act, does not postulate any deeming fiction. Meaning thereby, the assertion has to be established as a fact.

2. Applicability of Section 40 and the International Copyright Order, 1999:
   The Court observed that the International Copyright Order, 1999, was published on 06.04.1999 in the Official Gazette by the Central Government under the provisions of Section 40 of the Act. The Court stated by virtue of the provisions of Section 40 of the Act and the Copyright Order, it is discernible that there is no proscription on the transborder territoriality of copyrights, subject of course, to the provisions of Act. However, the Court clarified that while the statutory law, as it stands today read with the International Copyright Order, 1999, do deem that Copyrights are exercisable, sans border, yet, whether the artistic work claimed, is in fact an original artistic work entitled to be vested with copyright, is altogether a different matter. The Court further held that
   an individual or an entity claiming to be the ‘First Owner’, as postulated under Section 17 of the Act, must, necessarily, establish the assertion as a fact.

3. Failure to prove first ownership:
   The Court found that the petitioners relied on books concerning the history and development of the ‘CAMEL’ brand to establish their claim of originality and first ownership. The Court observed that save and except for the aforesaid books, there is no iota of evidence to establish any of the said averments. The Court further stated it needs to be underscored that any individual or entity claiming to be the ‘First Owner’ of an original artistic work has to necessarily and mandatorily discharge the said onus in terms of the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. The Court noted that the books relied upon by the petitioners had not been proved in accordance with law. The Court further observed that the relevant pages of the books were neither brought to the attention of the Court nor proved in accordance with law. The Court held that other than the
   aforesaid pages of the books mentioned above, there is no tangible proof which may lead this Court to come to a firm opinion regarding the ‘First Publication’ or as to whether the petitioner is the ‘First Owner’ of the Artistic Work. The Court also referred to Sections 101 to 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and stated that the initial burden of proving a fact must be discharged before the burden shifts to the other party.

4. Effect of the alleged admissions made by respondent no.1:
   The Court examined the alleged admissions contained in the written statement filed in
   CS(COMM) 644/2018, titled Japan Tobacco vs. D. Jhamnadas. The Court observed that the contents of the aforesaid paragraphs appear to be admissions, though, one can discern resistance to the contents of the plaint. However, the Court clarified that the suit was filed by the petitioner alleging infringement of its trademark by the respondent and
   was not related to copyright. The Court further observed that though the respondent does accept that they were exporting garments to M/s. Dornbusch GmbH and Co and that the said company was licensee of plaintiff No.1, however, simultaneously asserted that they were manufacturing readymade garments under the said trademark since the year 1992, which was to the knowledge of the petitioner herein. The Court concluded that the admissions are not unequivocal or unambiguous or clear. The Court further held that the alleged admissions did not establish the petitioners’ first ownership rights over the original artistic work.
5. Distinction between trademark rights and copyright:
   The Court observed that it is well settled that so far as trademarks are concerned, the territoriality principle would strictly be applied and are not interchangeable with the rights under the Act. The Court further stated that the Act read with International Copyright Orders deem transborder principle which is sorely missing in the trademarks regime. The Court clarified that the present petition concerned only copyright in the original artistic work in the mark ‘CAMEL’. The petitioners were therefore required to establish that they were the ‘First Owner’ of the original artistic work.

6. Alleged violation of Section 45(1) and Rule 70
   The Court held that so far as the submission of the petitioner regarding violation of Section 45(1) of the Act read with Rules 70 of the Copyright Rules, 2013, is concerned, having regard to the aforesaid analysis regarding the failure to establish rights as the ‘First Owner’, delving into this aspect appears to be academic. As such, the argument is unpersuasive. The Court observed that it is well settled that so far as trademarks are concerned, the territoriality principle would strictly be applied and are not interchangeable with the rights under the Act. The Court further stated that the Act read with International Copyright Orders deem transborder principle which is sorely missing in the trademarks regime. The Court clarified that the present petition concerned only copyright in the original artistic work in the mark ‘CAMEL’. The petitioners were therefore required to establish that they were the ‘First Owner’ of the original artistic work.

Decision:
The Court has dismissed the petition. The petitioners failed to establish themselves as First
Owner of the original artistic work in ‘CAMEL’ or ‘CAMEL COLLECTION’. The Court clarified
that its observations on the suit are not an expression on that suit’s merits.

– Priyanka Dey, Associate, Ductus Legal