Calcutta High Court Says Copyright Registration Requires Independent Scrutiny Even In Absence Of Objections
Introduction
The Calcutta High Court has held that copyright registration cannot be granted automatically merely because no objection is received within the statutory period. Interpreting the obligations of the Registrar of Copyright under the Copyright Rules, Justice Arindam Mukherjee held that the Registrar must independently verify the correctness of the application before granting registration, irrespective of whether objections are filed.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from a rectification application filed by Rajkumar Aggarwal seeking cancellation of a copyright registration granted in favour of Nand Kishore Bhimsariya. Aggarwal claimed that he had already obtained copyright registration for the concerned artistic work in 2009. According to him, Bhimsariya was fully aware of the earlier registration, having previously filed an unsuccessful rectification proceeding against it. Aggarwal alleged that despite such knowledge, Bhimsariya applied for registration without notifying him, although he was an interested person in the subject matter. As a result, Aggarwal remained unaware of the application and could not file objections within the prescribed 30-day period.
Procedural Background
Aggarwal approached the Calcutta High Court seeking rectification and cancellation of the copyright registration granted to Bhimsariya. Bhimsariya did not appear before the Court. However, records from proceedings before the Copyright Board indicated that he had admitted that the omission to notify Aggarwal was attributable to the Registrar’s failure to issue notice.
The Registrar of Copyright defended the registration by arguing that once no objection was received within 30 days of publication of the application, the Registrar was bound to enter the particulars into the copyright register.
Issues
1. Whether copyright registration can be granted automatically merely because no objections are filed within the statutory period.
2. Whether the Registrar of Copyright has an independent obligation to verify the correctness of the application before granting registration.
3. Whether failure to notify interested parties vitiates the registration process.
Contentions of the Parties
Aggarwal contended that Bhimsariya failed to comply with mandatory statutory requirements by not notifying interested parties before applying for registration. He argued that this prevented him from filing objections within the prescribed period.
He further submitted that the Registrar failed to independently scrutinise the application and verify whether a prior copyright registration already existed in his favour.
The Registrar argued that since no objections were received within 30 days from publication of the application, the Registrar was required to proceed with registration and enter the particulars in the copyright register.
Although Bhimsariya did not appear before the Court, records indicated that he had admitted that the Registrar had failed to notify Aggarwal about the application.
Reasoning and Analysis
The High Court rejected the Registrar’s interpretation of the Copyright Rules. The Court held that rules framed under a statute possess the force of law and must be mandatorily complied with. It observed that the absence of objections is only one aspect of the statutory framework and does not absolve the Registrar from independently satisfying himself regarding the correctness of the application.
Justice Mukherjee interpreted Rules 70(10) and 70(11) of the Copyright Rules, 2013 and held that the legislative intent clearly requires substantive satisfaction by the Registrar irrespective of whether objections are filed. The Court emphasised that if an applicant deliberately avoids notifying an interested party, that party may never become aware of the application and therefore lose the opportunity to object within the prescribed period. In such situations, independent scrutiny by the Registrar acts as a crucial safeguard against improper registrations.
The Court further found that the Registrar had failed to examine the copyright register to determine whether an earlier registration already existed in Aggarwal’s favour. Had such verification been undertaken, the dispute could have been resolved at the administrative stage itself. The Court observed that the Registrar’s failure to perform this exercise unnecessarily burdened the Court with avoidable litigation.
Decision
The Calcutta High Court set aside the copyright registration granted in favour of Nand Kishore Bhimsariya. The Court directed the Registrar to remove the impugned entry from the copyright register and database and rejected the underlying application for registration. However, the Court clarified that Bhimsariya would remain free to apply afresh after complying with all statutory requirements.
In this case the appellant was represented by Senior Advocate Sayantan Basu and Advocate Tanmoy Roy.