Section 50 of the Copyright Act 1957 deals with
'Rectification of Register by Copyright Board. The provision
The Copyright Board, on application of the Registrar of
Copyrights or of any person aggrieved, shall order the
rectification of the Registrar of Copyrights by-
the making of any entry wrongly omitted to be made in the
the expunging of any entry wrongly made in, or remaining on,
the register, or
the correction of any error or defect in the register.
The Copyright Board revisited the provision along with Rule
16(3) of the Copyright Rules in the case of G. Rosammal, M/s Swarna
Match Factory Vs. L. Chhotalal Samji Virani, M/s L. Chhotalal &
Co. 2010 (42) PTC 142(CB) .G. Rosammal, representative of M/s
Swarna Match Factory made an application under Section 50 of the
Copyright Act, 1957 for expunction of registration number for the
artistic work SUPER WITH DEVICE HORSE.
Rosammal, claiming to be the holder of label mark SUPER since
April 2004, which consisted of a shadow device of horse in
galloping position. The principle basis of arguments was violation
of Rule 16(3) of the Copyright Rules, which mandates that notice be
given to every person who claims or has an interest in the subject
matter of the copyright or disputes the right of the applicant in
Chhotalal & Co in repudiation of the contentions raised by
Rosammal stated that the benefit of Rule 16 of the Copyright Rules
could not be taken, as they had disowned rights in the trademark.
Reliance was placed on the email sent on behalf of Swarna Match
Factory, which concluded that they had done so.
The Board held that acknowledgement in regard to having received
the email from Rosammal in relation to the relevant area of marks
is indicative of the fact that at the least, Rosammal claimed to
have an interest in the subject-matter of the copyright.
The Board held that Rosammal deserved notice from Chhotalal
& Co and that Chhotalal & Co has violated Rule 16(3) of the
Copyright Rules. Also, the Board there is apparent conflict in the
user as claimed in the written statement and as reflected in the
application made to the Registrar. Chhotalal & Co had clearly
stated that the label mark was created in 1992 and is being used
since then, whereas the application before the Registrar mentions
the year of publication as 2004 thus creating a conflict. The Board
held that the registration was liable to expunction and directed
the Registrar to do the same.
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recently issued an office memorandum pursuant to receiving representations from various stakeholders for guidance with respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.
An Invention Disclosure Form is the documentation of the invention. This is a means to document particulars of your invention and submitting it to the patent attorney who is filing your patent application.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).