Copyright Registration Is Not Automatic — Registrar Must Independently Verify: Calcutta High Court

Case Background

A May 2026 ruling by the Calcutta High Court has clarified a widely misunderstood aspect of copyright registration procedure in India: the absence of an objection during the statutory waiting period does not automatically entitle an applicant to registration. The Registrar of Copyright must independently verify the application's correctness before entering the work in the Register.

The case — Rajkumar Aggarwal v. Nand Kishore Bhimsariya — arose from a dispute over copyright in an artistic work used on packaging for petroleum products. Justice Arindam Mukherjee's ruling has significant practical implications for anyone seeking or holding copyright registration in India.

The Registrar's Duty Under Rule 70

Copyright registration in India is governed by the Copyright Act 1957 and the Copyright Rules 2013. Under the registration process:

• Application filingThe applicant files an application in the prescribed form with the Copyright Office and pays the prescribed fee
• 30-day waiting periodThe application is advertised and interested parties have 30 days to file a formal objection
• No objection scenarioIf no objection is received within 30 days, the application proceeds further
• Registrar's independent scrutiny — Rule 70(10) and 70(11)Even without any objection, the Registrar must independently satisfy himself about the correctness of the particulars before granting registration

The Calcutta High Court held that the Registrar's independent duty of verification under Rules 70(10) and 70(11) operates separately from — and in addition to — the objection procedure. The two are not alternatives; both apply simultaneously.

What Went Wrong — Two Failures

The court identified failures by both the applicant (Bhimsariya) and the Registrar:

• Applicant's failure — no notification to interested partyBhimsariya applied for copyright registration without notifying Aggarwal — who held a prior registration for the same artistic work since 2009 and was clearly a 'person interested' in the matter. The mandatory notification requirement was not followed, leaving Aggarwal unaware of the application and unable to object within the 30-day period
• Registrar's failure — no independent checkThe Registrar granted registration without checking the copyright register to verify whether a prior registration for the same work already existed in Aggarwal's favour. Had this elementary check been performed, the conflicting registration would have been immediately apparent — and the entire dispute could have been avoided at the administrative stage itself

The court noted that Bhimsariya had previously and unsuccessfully sought rectification against Aggarwal's 2009 registration — meaning Bhimsariya was well aware of Aggarwal's prior registration when he applied for his own. Records before the Copyright Board showed that Bhimsariya himself had admitted the error lay with the Registrar in not putting Aggarwal on notice.

Calcutta High Court's Ruling

Justice Arindam Mukherjee set aside the registration granted to Bhimsariya, directed the Registrar to remove the entry from both the Copyright Office database and the physical copyright register, and rejected Bhimsariya's underlying registration application.

The court observed that the Registrar's failure to conduct independent verification "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."

Crucially, the court clarified that the cancellation would not prevent Bhimsariya from applying afresh — but only after complying with all statutory requirements, including proper notification of interested parties.

Implications for Copyright Applicants

This ruling has important practical consequences:

• No objection ≠ automatic registrationThe absence of objections during the 30-day period is a necessary but not sufficient condition for registration — the Registrar's independent satisfaction is separately required
• Prior registrations will be checkedThe Registrar must verify the Register of Copyrights for prior entries — applicants who try to register works already registered to others will be identified
• Notification of interested parties is mandatoryApplicants must notify persons with a clear interest in the work — failure to do so is a ground for subsequent rectification of any registration granted
• Wrongful registration can be cancelledA registration obtained without proper notification of interested parties can be set aside in rectification proceedings before the High Court — even after it has been granted and entered in the Register

Key Lessons

• Check the register before applyingBefore filing a copyright registration application, check whether any registration already exists for the same work — the Copyright Office online database is publicly searchable
• Notify all interested partiesIdentify and notify all persons with an interest in the work being registered — this is a mandatory statutory requirement, not a formality
• Prior registration is valuableAggarwal's 2009 registration ultimately protected his rights — early registration creates a clear evidential record that strengthens your position in any subsequent dispute
• The Registrar has active dutiesThe Registrar's role is not passive or ministerial — courts expect the Copyright Office to actively verify applications, not simply process them if no objection arrives
• Rectification is availableIf a conflicting copyright registration is granted without proper procedure, rectification proceedings before the High Court are available to have it cancelled

Why Choose Adv. Nikhil Soni & Co.?

• Personal handling by senior advocateAdv. Nikhil Soni personally handles every copyright registration matter — clients deal directly with the advocate, not junior staff
• 23+ years, 5000+ trademarksExclusive IP practice since 2001 — trademark, patent, copyright, design and trade secret
• All India coverageAuthorised to handle IP matters before courts and tribunals across India
• End-to-end serviceRegistration, enforcement, litigation and licensing — complete IP lifecycle management

Frequently Asked Questions