Japan Tobacco Seeks Removal of Rival’s ‘CAMEL’ Copyright Claiming Century-Old Artwork; Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea, Says First Ownership Was Not Proved
Foreign ‘CAMEL’ Brand Relies on 1913 History and International Copyright Protection to Challenge 1997 Registration; Delhi High Court Says Transborder Protection Cannot Replace Proof of First Ownership
Facts
Japan Tobacco Inc. and its affiliate Worldwide Brands Inc. filed a petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 seeking rectification of the Register of Copyrights by removal of Copyright Registration No. A-54242/97 dated 22 October 1997 concerning the rival ‘CAMEL’ artistic work.
The Petitioners asserted rights in various CAMEL artworks and trademarks. They traced the CAMEL artwork to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and claimed use since 1913 for tobacco products and since the late 1970s for non-tobacco goods such as garments, bags, belts, footwear and headgear.
The impugned work was stated to have been authored by Mrs. Veena R. Hinduja and first published in 1992. The Petitioners alleged that the work merely lifted elements from their earlier CAMEL word/device artworks and superimposed them to create the registered work.
The Petitioners relied upon historic Indian and foreign trademark registrations, licensing arrangements involving Worldwide Brands Inc. and Dornbusch GmbH & Co., and the manufacture/export of garments by Gokaldas Exports, a sister concern of Respondent No.1.
Respondent No.1 maintained that it was the rightful proprietor of the CAMEL COLLECTION copyright registered in 1997 with claimed first publication in 1992 and also relied upon its trademark registrations, sales invoices, advertisements and commercial use.
Issues
Whether the Petitioners qualified as persons aggrieved entitled to seek rectification under Section 50 of the Copyright Act.
Whether the Petitioners established that they were the ‘First Owner’ of the ‘Original Artistic Work’ in CAMEL/CAMEL COLLECTION within the meaning of Section 17.
Whether Section 40 of the Copyright Act read with the International Copyright Order, 1999 enabled reliance upon foreign publication and transborder copyright protection.
Whether the alleged admissions of Respondent No.1 concerning manufacture and export of CAMEL-branded garments established the Petitioners’ first ownership.
Whether alleged non-compliance with Section 45(1) and the Copyright Rules justified removal of Respondent No.1’s registration.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The Petitioners argued that their CAMEL artwork substantially pre-dated the Respondent’s claimed 1992 work and that the impugned artwork lacked originality because it was a combination or superimposition of their earlier CAMEL word and camel-device artworks.
They relied upon Section 40 and the International Copyright Orders to contend that copyright first published in a Berne Convention country could be protected in India as though first published here.
They contended that Respondent No.1’s sister concern, Gokaldas Exports, had manufactured CAMEL-branded garments pursuant to an outsourcing arrangement flowing from a licence granted by Worldwide Brands Inc. to Dornbusch. This, according to the Petitioners, demonstrated prior knowledge of their artwork.
They also argued that Mrs. Veena R. Hinduja’s association with Gokaldas Exports made it implausible that she independently created an original CAMEL work in 1992.
The Petitioners alleged non-compliance with the statutory requirements governing registration, including Section 45(1) and the relevant Copyright Rules, and relied on authorities including Marico Ltd. v. Mrs. Jagit Kaur, Manju Singal, Hugo Boss and Triloki Nath Gupta.
Respondent No.1’s Arguments
Respondent No.1 asserted that its CAMEL COLLECTION artistic work was first published in 1992 and registered as copyright in 1997, and that it also possessed trademark registrations and had openly used the marks for garments.
It argued that the Petitioners had not established actual manufacture, import, sale or advertisement of CAMEL garments in India and could not convert foreign trademark registrations into enforceable Indian rights through a transborder trademark theory.
Respondent No.1 disputed that its statements in connected trademark litigation amounted to unequivocal admissions of the Petitioners’ copyright ownership.
It further argued that the Petitioners had not proved the necessary chain of copyright ownership or original authorship and therefore lacked the foundation necessary for rectification.
Respondent No.1 relied on the statutory registration in its favour and contended that the petition should be dismissed.
Analysis of the Law
The Court identified the core inquiry as proof of an ‘Original Artistic Work’ and, critically, proof of who was its ‘First Owner’. Section 17 requires first ownership to be established as a fact; ownership of a trademark does not automatically establish ownership of copyright in the artistic work embodied in the mark.
The Court accepted that Section 40 read with the International Copyright Order, 1999 recognises transborder copyright protection. A work first published in a covered foreign territory may be treated in the manner contemplated by the Act as though published in India.
However, international protection does not dispense with the anterior requirement of proving that the claimant actually owns the original artistic work. Before seeking expungement of another person’s registration, the challenger must establish its own first ownership and first publication of the original work.
The Petitioners relied principally upon books narrating the history and creation of the CAMEL artwork. The Court found that the relevant pages were merely photocopies, had been denied by Respondent No.1, and were not proved in accordance with the law of evidence.
Under the rules governing burden of proof, the initial burden remained upon the Petitioners. Since that burden was not discharged, it did not shift to Respondent No.1. Section 48 of the Copyright Act additionally operated as a statutory presumption in favour of the registered particulars.
The Court also distinguished copyright from trademark rights. Territoriality applicable in trademark law and the transborder framework recognised in copyright law could not be treated as interchangeable concepts.
Precedent Analysis
The Petitioners cited Marico Ltd. v. Mrs. Jagit Kaur and decisions including Manju Singal Proprietor Singla Food Products v. Deepak Kumar, Hugo Boss Trademark Management GmbH & Co. KG v. Sandeep Arora, and Triloki Nath Gupta v. Durga Prasad Gupta in support of rectification and originality-related propositions.
Respondent No.1 relied, inter alia, upon Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha decisions concerning territoriality in trademark law.
Ultimately, the Court held that the authorities cited by the parties were not determinative of the decisive evidentiary failure before it. Because the Petitioners had not proved first ownership of the original artistic work, the Court considered detailed examination of those precedents unnecessary.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the Petitioners had not produced legally proved evidence sufficient to establish first publication and first ownership of the CAMEL artistic work. The historic narrative contained in books could not by itself discharge the statutory and evidentiary burden when those materials had not been proved.
The Court rejected the proposition that prior trademark registrations automatically established copyright ownership. Trademark registration may lend credibility, but Section 17 contains no deeming fiction making a trademark proprietor the first owner of the underlying artistic copyright.
The Petitioners’ reliance on Section 40 and the International Copyright Order was legally attractive but insufficient. Transborder enforceability presupposes an enforceable copyright; it cannot cure failure to prove original authorship or first ownership.
The alleged admissions in the connected trademark suit were not unequivocal. Respondent No.1 acknowledged export dealings with Dornbusch but simultaneously asserted that it had manufactured garments under its own CAMEL mark since 1992. Those statements could not establish the Petitioners’ first ownership by inference.
Respondent No.1 had Form 9 evidencing copyright registration dated 22 October 1997 with claimed first publication in 1992. In the absence of proof overcoming the statutory position and establishing the Petitioners’ own superior first ownership, the Court could not hold that the registration was wrongly remaining on the Register.
Having found the foundational requirement of first ownership unproved, the Court considered the Petitioners’ separate objection concerning Section 45(1) and the Copyright Rules academic and unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the rectification petition. Japan Tobacco and Worldwide Brands failed to establish that they were the ‘First Owner’ of the ‘Original Artistic Work’ in CAMEL or CAMEL COLLECTION, and therefore failed to show that Respondent No.1’s copyright registration was wrongly entered or wrongly remaining on the Register of Copyrights.
The Court clarified that its observations concerning the connected suit, CS(COMM) 644/2018, Japan Tobacco v. D. Jhamnadas, would not amount to an expression on the merits of that suit.
Case Details
Case: Japan Tobacco Inc. & Anr. v. The Central Wearhouse & Anr.
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 814/2022
Judge: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Reserved on: 25 April 2026
Delivered on: 5 October 2026
Statutory Provision: Section 50, Copyright Act, 1957
Impugned Registration: Copyright Registration No. A-54242/97 dated 22 October 1997
Result: Petition dismissed; rectification/expungement of Respondent No.1’s copyright registration refused.
