Court sets aside registration of “Radhey Radhey Barsane Wali Radhey” and sends matter back to Registrar for fresh consideration after allowing objections from alleged prior rights holder.
The Delhi High Court has set aside the copyright registration of a sound recording titled “Radhey Radhey Barsane Wali Radhey” after finding that the mandatory notice requirement was not followed before granting registration.
Justice Jyoti Singh, while hearing a rectification petition filed by Vipul Music Company, held that the impugned registration bearing No. SR-15094/2020 dated 11.11.2020 could not stand because no prior notice had been issued to the petitioner, who claimed interest in the work. The Court noted that issuance of notice to every person claiming or having an interest in the subject matter of copyright is mandatory under Rule 16(3) of the Copyright Rules, 1958, which is pari materia to Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013.
According to the petitioner, the firm had earlier created and copyrighted the sound recording “Radha Naam Sang Brij 84 Kosh Yatra” and had been actively protecting its rights over the years. It alleged that Respondent No. 2 obtained registration of the impugned sound recording despite being aware of the petitioner’s prior claim and ownership in the underlying works, including the lyrics and music composition. The petitioner also pointed to previous correspondence, public notices, and a pending civil suit concerning the dispute.
Counsel for the petitioner relied on earlier Delhi High Court decisions, including M/s New Bharat Overseas v. M/s Bhagwati Lacto Vegetarian Exports Pvt Ltd., Anil Kumar Gera v. Mr. Ramesh Chander, and Saurabh Rawlley v. Pawan Garg, where copyright registrations were similarly interfered with for want of mandatory notice.
Significantly, counsel for Respondent No. 2 did not dispute that no notice had been issued to the petitioner before the registration was granted. In view of this admitted procedural lapse, the Court allowed the petition in part and revoked the impugned copyright registration.
However, the Court also clarified that it was not deciding the ownership dispute on merits. The original application for registration filed by Respondent No. 2 has been revived, and the petitioner has been granted six weeks to file objections before the Registrar of Copyrights. Respondent No. 2 may file a response within two weeks thereafter. The Registrar has been directed to decide the matter in accordance with law within eight weeks from the filing of the response.
The High Court emphasized that all rights and contentions of both sides remain open.
Bottom Line :
Copyright - Rectification petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 - Copyright registration of sound recording set aside as no prior notice was issued to a person claiming interest in the work as mandated by Rule 16(3) of the Copyright Rules, 1958, pari materia to Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013 - Matter remanded to Registrar of Copyrights for fresh consideration after permitting objections and response.
Statutory provision(s): Section 50, Copyright Act, 1957, Rule 16(3), Copyright Rules, 1958, Rule 70(9), Copyright Rules, 2013
