Reaffirming the Broad‑Feature Comparison Test for Cancelling Label Copyrights under Section 50 – Commentary on Rajani Products v. Madhukar Varandani

1. Introduction

This commentary examines the decision of the Delhi High Court in Rajani Products v. Madhukar Varandani, Proprietor of M/s Natural India Oils and Proteins & Anr., C.O.(COMM.IPD‑CR) 16/2024, decided on 24 November 2025 (2025 DHC 10368).

The case arises from a petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, seeking expungement of a copyright registration for an artistic label used on edible oil packaging. The core questions before the Court were:

• Who qualifies as a “person aggrieved” entitled to seek rectification of the copyright register?
• When will an artistic label be held to be a substantial reproduction of an earlier label so as to lack originality?
• What comparison test should courts apply when assessing similarity between artistic labels under copyright law?

The dispute lies at the intersection of copyright in artistic works and the trade dress/trade mark aspects of labels used in the edible oil business. The Court, presided over by Justice Tejas Karia, orders cancellation of the respondent’s copyright registration for a label featuring the device of “SWASTIK”, holding that it is a substantial imitation of the petitioner’s prior registered labels and fails the originality requirement.

Although the Court relies on well‑established principles, particularly from Marico Ltd. v. Jagit Kaur and the Supreme Court’s Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co., Mysore, the decision is significant because it:

• Reaffirms that the “broad and essential features” test used in trademark/pass‑off cases is equally applicable when comparing artistic labels under copyright law.
• Clarifies that a prior owner of a label used in the same trade is a “person aggrieved” who can invoke Section 50 to cancel a rival’s copyright registration.
• Shows how courts may treat religious or cultural symbols (like a “swastik” device) within labels as protectable artistic elements when combined with a distinctive colour scheme and layout.

2. Overview of Facts and Background

2.1 Parties and their businesses

• Petitioner – Rajani Products: A partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and marketing edible oil and allied/cognate goods.
• Respondent No. 1 – Madhukar Varandani, Proprietor of M/s Natural India Oils and Proteins: Also engaged in manufacturing, marketing and sale of edible oil and allied goods.
• Respondent No. 2 – Union of India / Government (represented by CGSC): Impleaded as the authority responsible for the IP register, opposing the grant of relief.

2.2 Petitioner’s trade marks and artistic works

Rajani Products claims use of the trade marks and labels “SWASTIK”, “SWASTIK NO. 1” and a “SWASTIK” logo/device since 1975 in connection with edible oils. The word “SWASTIK” forms an essential and prominent part of its trade dress.

Relevant trade mark registrations include (all in Class 29 for edible oils):

• SWASTIK NO. 1, Application No. 411334 – registered and valid up to 29/09/2034.
• Another mark (number not reproduced fully in the judgment text but listed as 1055218) – registered and valid up to 30/10/2031.
• Applications 2146301 and 4838086 – pending registrations for edible/mustard oil.

In addition to trade mark rights, Rajani Products holds copyright registrations for its artistic labels, described in the judgment as:

• SWASTIK LABEL – Copyright Registration No. A‑45417/1984
• SWASTIK LABEL – Copyright Registration No. A‑46097/1984

The Court refers to these as the “Petitioner’s Artistic Works”. These labels prominently feature a distinctive SWASTIK device, with a particular background colour scheme and layout.

2.3 Respondent’s impugned artistic work

Respondent No. 1 adopted and used labels for edible oils under:

• “SHUBHARAMBH” with device of SWASTIK
• “NIWAI” with device of SWASTIK

The particular label that became the subject of the rectification petition was the artistic work titled “NIOP NIWAI IN ENGLISH AND HINDI WITH DEVICE OF SWASTIK”, bearing Copyright Registration No. A‑128046/2019 (referred to as the “Impugned Artistic Work”).

The Petitioner expressly stated that it had no objection to the respondent’s use of the words “SHUBHARAMBH” or “NIWAI” per se; its grievance was confined to the use of the SWASTIK device and the overall artistic presentation, which it alleged was a slavish copy of its own labels.

2.4 Prior infringement suit and discovery of the copyright registration

Before the rectification petition, Rajani Products had already initiated a civil suit: CS(COMM) No. 84/2021 against Respondent No. 1 for infringement/passing off in relation to the labels:

• “SHUBHARAMBH” with device of SWASTIK; and
• “NIWAI” with device of SWASTIK.

In that suit, the District Judge (Commercial Court‑02), South, Saket Courts, granted an interim injunction on 19.02.2021 in favour of the Petitioner, restraining the respondent from using those labels.

Rajani Products came to know of the respondent’s copyright registration for the Impugned Artistic Work (A‑128046/2019) from the written statement filed by Respondent No. 1 in the suit. It then chose an additional and targeted route: a rectification petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act before the High Court’s IP Division.

2.5 Procedural history in the rectification petition

• 30.08.2024 – Notice issued; counsel for respondents accepted notice and was granted four weeks to file reply.
• 13.12.2024 – No reply filed; a further six weeks granted.
• 29.04.2025 – Last opportunity given to Respondent No. 1, subject to costs of ₹10,000/-, with four weeks to file reply, and both parties directed to file written synopses.
• 08.09.2025 – Despite the “last opportunity”, Respondent No. 1 failed to file a reply. The Court closed the right to file reply.

As a result, the petition was decided on the basis of the uncontroverted pleadings and evidence of the Petitioner, with the Union of India (Respondent No. 2) opposing the relief in a general sense.

3. Summary of the Judgment

3.1 Identification of the “person aggrieved”

Under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, a “person aggrieved” may apply for rectification of the Register of Copyrights, including expungement of an entry “wrongly made”. The Court held that Rajani Products clearly qualified as a “person aggrieved” because:

• It is the registered owner of earlier copyright registrations in the SWASTIK artistic labels; and
• Both parties operate in the same line of business (edible oils and allied goods), so the respondent’s use of a similar label would dilute the petitioner’s goodwill built around the SWASTIK label.

3.2 Test for comparing artistic labels

Relying on Marico Ltd. v. Jagit Kaur and the Supreme Court’s decision in Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co., Mysore, the Court re‑affirmed that:

• When two labels or artistic works are compared for similarity, courts should focus on their broad and essential features, not microscopic, side‑by‑side differences.
• Factors such as colour scheme, objects used, and their arrangement are relevant to determine substantial reproduction or similarity.

The Court endorsed the proposition that if, to an average purchaser, one label would readily be mistaken for the other viewed at a different time, substantial similarity exists.

3.3 Comparison of the works and finding of non‑originality

On comparing the Petitioner’s Artistic Works with the Impugned Artistic Work, the Court found:

• The SWASTIK device is an essential and prominent element in both.
• The background colour scheme of the competing labels is substantially similar.
• The placement and presentation of the SWASTIK device (including encasement in a circle, as in Registration No. A‑46097/84) is closely imitated in the Impugned Artistic Work.

The Court concluded that the Impugned Artistic Work is a substantial imitation / reproduction of the Petitioner’s Artistic Works and lacks the necessary originality for copyright protection.

3.4 Rectification ordered

Holding that the entry of Registration No. A‑128046/2019 was “wrongly made” on the Register of Copyrights, the Court:

• Allowed the petition under Section 50.
• Expunged and cancelled the copyright registration A‑128046/2019 for “NIOP NIWAI in English and Hindi with Device of SWASTIK”.
• Directed the Registry to supply a copy of the order to the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) at the specified email for compliance, and directed that it be reflected on the CGPDTM website within four weeks.

The petition and pending application were accordingly disposed of.

4. Detailed Analysis

4.1 Precedents cited and their influence

4.1.1 Marico Ltd. v. Jagit Kaur, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8488

In Marico, the Delhi High Court was concerned with competing labels for edible oil where one party complained that the rival’s label was a “colourful imitation” of its own. The Court observed that:

• The colour scheme, presence and arrangement of the coconut tree, and the two broken coconuts on both labels were so similar that one could be termed a “colourful imitation or substantive reproduction” of the other.
• Because of the plaintiff’s long use in the market, the defendant had access to the plaintiff’s label, facilitating an inference of copying.
• When comparing labels, the Court must look at the overall impression, not place the marks side by side to look for minute differences.

The judgment in Marico expressly relied on the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Parle Products v. J.P. & Co., which articulated the “broad and essential features” test.

Justice Karia quotes extensively from Marico, endorsing two important principles for the present case:

1. For artistic labels, the same test applied in trademark/pass‑off litigation is applicable under copyright law when assessing substantial reproduction.
2. The similarity of colour scheme, layout, and positioning of key elements (such as a symbol like a swastik) are legally significant indicators of copying or imitation.

4.1.2 Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co., Mysore, (1972) 1 SCC 618

In Parle Products, the Supreme Court considered two biscuit wrappers. The Court held that to determine deceptive similarity of marks/wrappers:

The Supreme Court emphasized:

• Overall similarity, not meticulous dissection.
• The imperfect recollection of the ordinary customer.
• The importance of colour scheme, principal figures (e.g., a girl with a cow, chickens, farmhouse in the background), and their arrangement.

Although Parle Products was a trade mark / passing off case, Justice Karia, via Marico, applies this reasoning to artistic labels in copyright. The underlying rationale is coherent: labels in the market are encountered by ordinary consumers whose primary focus is on the overall impression, not on precise artistic differences.

4.1.3 How these precedents shaped the decision

In Rajani Products, the Court:

• Adopts the same analytical lens for comparing artistic labels under copyright law that courts employ in trade mark/passing‑off cases.
• Focuses on overall visual impact—particularly the SWASTIK device, background colour, and layout—rather than minor dissimilarities such as different words (“Niwai”, “Shubharambh”).
• Uses the imperfect recollection standard: whether a purchaser familiar with Rajani’s SWASTIK label might easily mistake the respondent’s SWASTIK device label as connected with the petitioner.

This cross‑pollination between trade mark and copyright jurisprudence is not new, but this judgment fortifies it in the context of label copyright rectification under Section 50.

4.2 Legal reasoning: from “person aggrieved” to cancellation

4.2.1 “Person aggrieved” under Section 50 of the Copyright Act

Section 50 empowers the High Court (now, for IP matters, via its IP Division) to rectify the Register of Copyrights. Broadly, rectification may be sought when:

• An entry has been wrongly made in or wrongly remains on the Register; or
• There is an error or defect in any entry.

Standing is conferred on a “person aggrieved”. While the Act does not define the term, courts typically interpret it pragmatically—akin to standing in trade mark rectification proceedings:

• The person must have some commercial or legal interest in the copyright entry being challenged.
• The presence of the impugned entry on the register must be injurious or prejudicial to that interest.

Justice Karia holds that Rajani Products is a “person aggrieved” because:

1. It is the registered copyright owner of earlier SWASTIK labels—giving it a direct legal interest in preventing derivative or copycat labels from being registered in someone else’s name.
2. Both parties deal in identical goods (edible oils), so the presence and continued validity of the respondent’s registration is likely to cause:
   • Confusion in the market—with consumers associating the respondent’s goods with Rajani’s SWASTIK brand; and
   • Dilution of goodwill—the commercial reputation Rajani has built around its SWASTIK labels since 1975.

Thus, the Court implicitly recognises that a combination of:

• Prior copyright in a similar artistic work; and
• Engagement in the same trade/market,

is sufficient to qualify as a “person aggrieved” under Section 50.

4.2.2 Role of non‑filing of reply by Respondent No. 1

The Court notes at the outset that since no reply was filed by Respondent No. 1 despite multiple opportunities, the averments in the petition remained uncontroverted. This procedural fact has two consequences:

• There is no competing factual version or justification for the respondent’s adoption of the impugned label.
• The Petitioner’s claims about prior use, market reputation, and substantial similarity are accepted in the absence of rebuttal, subject to the Court still satisfying itself on the legal thresholds of originality and wrongful entry.

However, the Court does not grant rectification mechanically. It still undertakes:

• A substantive comparison of the Petitioner’s Artistic Works and the Impugned Artistic Work; and
• A legal analysis of the originality requirement and substantial reproduction test.

4.2.3 Originality as a pre‑condition for copyright protection

While the judgment does not cite the standard Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (Supreme Court) on “modicum of creativity”, it reiterates a core proposition:

“It is well‑settled in law that Copyright protection is granted to an artistic work under the Act, only if the said work meets the threshold of originality.”

In Indian law, “originality” does not mean absolute novelty but that:

• The work originated from the author (not copied), and
• It embodies at least a minimal degree of creativity or skill and judgment.

If an artistic work is merely a substantial imitation or reproduction of a prior work (especially a registered, well‑known label used in the same market), it fails this originality threshold, and its registration is liable to be cancelled.

4.2.4 Application of the comparison test to the impugned label

The Court compares the Petitioner’s Artistic Works (A‑45417/1984 and A‑46097/1984) with the Impugned Artistic Work (A‑128046/2019) and finds:

1. Common essential element – the SWASTIK device
   In both sets of labels, the SWASTIK symbol is a central, visual focal point:
   • It is not a minor or background design, but an essential part of the trade dress.
   • In one of the Petitioner’s Artistic Works (A‑46097/1984), the SWASTIK is placed within a circle; similar treatment appears in the Impugned Artistic Work.
2. Similarity in background colour scheme
   The Court notes that the background colours of the competing labels are similar. In label litigation, colour schemes frequently play a decisive role since consumers often recognise products visually by colour + symbol + layout.
3. Arrangement and placement of objects
   The Court refers to “placement of objects and artistic features”, emphasizing that:
   • The overall configuration—how the SWASTIK device is positioned in the label, its enclosure, and relation to other elements—has been imitated.
   • This imitation is not coincidental but suggests a conscious effort to ride on the visual identity of the Petitioner’s label.

The Court characterises the Impugned Artistic Work as:

• a “slavish copy” and
• “substantially similar” to the Petitioner’s Artistic Works.

On this basis, it concludes that the impugned work is not original. Consequently, its copyright registration was “wrongly made” and must be expunged.

4.2.5 Interplay with trade mark and passing‑off law

Although this is a copyright rectification case, the facts are deeply intertwined with trade mark and passing‑off considerations:

• The Petitioner has registered trade marks incorporating the SWASTIK device and word mark.
• There is a separate civil suit for infringement/passing off where an interim injunction has already been granted.
• The tests applied (overall similarity, broad and essential features, colour scheme, layout) are classic trade mark tests, adapted to the context of artistic works.

This illustrates a practical trend: in label disputes in fast‑moving consumer goods (FMCG), rights holders frequently rely on a combination of trade mark and copyright protection. Copyright protects the artistic composition of the label, while trade mark law protects the distinctive sign and trade dress. Here, Section 50 rectification complements the infringement suit by removing the respondent’s ability to claim copyright protection for a copycat label.

4.3 Impact and significance of the judgment

4.3.1 Strengthening Section 50 as a tool against copycat labels

The decision reinforces that Section 50 is a potent remedy where:

• A rival has obtained copyright registration for a label that substantially imitates an earlier label; and
• Both parties are in the same line of business, such that confusion and dilution are likely.

Strategically, it underscores that brand owners should:

• Not only file infringement suits, but also
• Challenge wrongful copyright registrations in rival labels that attempt to secure a statutory monopoly over their imitation.

The net effect is to protect the integrity of the copyright register and pre‑empt the misuse of registrations as a defence weapon in litigation.

4.3.2 Codifying the “broad and essential features” test for artistic labels

By explicitly following Marico and Parle Products, the Court confirms that:

• The “broad and essential features” test is now firmly embedded in copyright disputes over labels.
• Courts will not be impressed by trivial differences in words or marginal design changes when the look and feel of the rival label remains substantially the same.
• Colour schemes and layout are critical to the assessment of substantial similarity.

This is particularly important in sectors like edible oils, food products, household goods, and cosmetics, where consumers often buy based on visual recognition rather than detailed scrutiny of names.

4.3.3 Protecting stylised cultural/religious symbols within labels

“SWASTIK” is a common religious/cultural symbol in India, widely used in various contexts. The judgment is noteworthy because:

• It implicitly recognises that while a bare symbol may be in the public domain or widely used, a particular stylised representation of the symbol—combined with a certain colour scheme and layout—can be protected as an artistic work.
• The Petitioner did not claim an absolute monopoly over the word “Swastik” or all possible forms of a swastik symbol; it complained about a very specific device and label configuration.
• The Court focuses on overall imitation of the petitioner’s treatment of the symbol rather than the mere presence of a swastik.

This signal is relevant for businesses that use other culturally laden symbols (e.g., Om, deities, lamps) in their labels: what becomes protectable—and what will be policed in court—is the distinctive artistic embodiment, not the abstract cultural or religious symbol alone.

4.3.4 Practical implications for IP strategy in FMCG and commodity markets

For businesses, especially in FMCG and commodity markets (like edible oil), this decision illustrates several strategic points:

1. Maintain robust copyright registrations for labels
   Labels are not just trade marks; they are artistic works. Copyright registrations (like A‑45417/1984, A‑46097/1984) are useful not only for enforcement but also for:
   • Rectifying the register against imitators; and
   • Demonstrating prior creation and originality in litigation.
2. Combine remedies: suit + rectification
   Using both:
   • A civil suit (for injunction and damages under trade mark and copyright law); and
   • A Section 50 rectification petition,
   ensures comprehensive protection—stopping use of the infringing label and stripping it of statutory legitimacy.
3. Don’t underestimate colour and layout
   Businesses often focus on names and logos but forget that colour schemes, placement, and framing are equally protectable and legally significant. Copying these elements can constitute substantial reproduction, even if the name is different.

4.3.5 Administrative and institutional impact

The Court directs the Registry to send the order to the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks of India (CGPDTM) for compliance and to reflect the change on its website. While, statutorily, copyright is administered through the Copyright Office (under the Ministry/Department dealing with IP), this direction reflects:

• The increasing institutional integration of IP administration and the role of the Delhi High Court’s IP Division in overseeing rectification of multiple IP registers.
• An emphasis on transparency—ensuring that cancellation orders are publicly visible and that practitioners can rely on updated online registers.

5. Complex Legal Concepts Simplified

5.1 “Artistic work” in copyright law

Under the Copyright Act, “artistic work” includes:

• Paintings, drawings, diagrams, maps, charts, or plans;
• Engravings, photographs;
• Works of architecture and sculptures;
• And significantly, labels and logos that contain visual designs.

A label like the SWASTIK oil label is an “artistic work” because it involves graphic design, including drawings, colour combinations, and layout.

5.2 “Originality” requirement

For copyright to subsist in an artistic work, the work must be “original”. This does not mean it must be completely different from everything in the world; it means:

• The work is the result of the author’s own skill, labour, and judgment, and
• It is not copied from an earlier work to a substantial extent.

If a label merely copies the essential visual elements (like a stylised SWASTIK device and background colours) from an earlier label, it is not “original” and cannot validly claim copyright.

5.3 “Substantial reproduction” or “substantial similarity”

Copyright infringement (and loss of originality) does not require a pixel‑perfect copy. The law asks whether the later work has taken a substantial part of the earlier work.

In practice, courts consider:

• Whether the core idea and expression of the earlier work is reproduced;
• If the main design elements (colour, layout, central symbols) are copied;
• How the work appears to an ordinary observer, not an expert examiner.

If these factors point to similarity, the later work is a “substantial reproduction”.

5.4 “Broad and essential features” test

Instead of closely examining two labels side by side for tiny differences, courts ask:

• What are the dominant visual impressions of the labels?
• Are their overall get‑up, colour combination, and symbols so alike that an average consumer might think they are related?

This is the “broad and essential features” test, drawn from Parle Products and consistently applied in trade mark and now copyright label disputes.

5.5 “Person aggrieved” under Section 50

A “person aggrieved” is someone who has a genuine interest in having the Register of Copyrights corrected. Examples include:

• The owner of an earlier copyright in a similar or identical work;
• A competitor in the same trade whose legitimate interests would be harmed by the continuance of a wrongful registration;
• A licensee or assignee whose rights are hindered by the contested entry.

In this case, the Petitioner is aggrieved because the respondent’s registration threatens its goodwill and its prior copyright.

5.6 Rectification / expungement of entries

“Rectification” under Section 50 refers to the Court’s power to:

• Amend, correct, or remove (expunge) entries in the Register of Copyrights when they are incorrect or wrongly made;
• Ensure that the public register is accurate and does not contain invalid or fraudulent registrations.

When the Court cancels the registration A‑128046/2019, it is directing that the official database no longer show the respondent as the copyright owner of the impugned label. This has a strong evidentiary and practical impact in future disputes.

5.7 “Goodwill” and “dilution”

“Goodwill” refers to the commercial reputation a business builds in the market—consumer trust, recognition, and preference.

“Dilution” occurs when a similar mark or label is used by another trader, thereby:

• Blurring the distinctiveness of the original;
• Potentially tarnishing the brand if inferior goods/services are associated with it.

Rajani Products argued, and the Court accepted, that the respondent’s imitation of its SWASTIK label is likely to dilute its goodwill in the edible oil market.

6. Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Rajani Products v. Madhukar Varandani is a concise yet important reinforcement of existing principles governing copyright in artistic labels and the rectification of the copyright register.

Key takeaways include:

• Section 50 as an effective remedy: A prior copyright owner in the same field of trade is a “person aggrieved” and can successfully seek cancellation of a rival’s copyright registration that is a substantial reproduction of its own work.
• Originality is non‑negotiable: An artistic work that substantially copies an earlier registered work—especially in central elements like a stylised SWASTIK device and colour scheme—lacks originality and its registration is “wrongly made”.
• Application of “broad and essential features” test: The Court follows Marico and Parle Products, confirming that comparison of artistic labels focuses on overall similarity, colour schemes, layout, and main symbols, not on minute, side‑by‑side distinctions.
• Synergy between trade mark and copyright law: The case illustrates how label disputes often draw on doctrines from both domains—using copyright for artistic protection and trade mark principles for assessing consumer confusion and goodwill.
• Protection of stylised cultural symbols: While cultural symbols are widely used, a distinct stylised depiction incorporated into a label, combined with a unique trade dress, can receive strong protection against imitation.

In the broader legal context, this judgment contributes to a consistent line of authority from the Delhi High Court emphasising:

• Real‑world consumer perception over hyper‑technical comparison;
• The importance of maintaining a clean and reliable IP register; and
• The Court’s willingness to invoke rectification powers where copyright registrations are used to legitimize copycat labels.

For rights holders, Rajani Products is a clear message: register your labels, monitor the register, and be prepared to use rectification proceedings to neutralise imitative registrations, especially in competitive consumer markets where the visual appearance of packaging is central to brand identity.