Delhi High Court Cancels Gujarat Pesticides ZOOOK Copyright Over Trademark Conflict

The Delhi High Court has cancelled a copyright registration for an artistic label, holding that copyright cannot be used as a back door to claim rights over a trademark that is itself disputed. In Fortune Marketing Private Limited v. Gujarat Pesticides and Others, decided on 29 May 2026, the Court revoked the registration of the ZOOOK label and reinforced the safeguards built into India's copyright law.

The decision is significant for brand owners because it clarifies the boundary between copyright and trademark protection, two regimes that often overlap when logos and packaging are involved. Understanding that boundary is essential for anyone deciding how to register a trademark in India.

The Dispute

The respondent, Gujarat Pesticides, had filed a trademark application incorporating the word ZOOOK, which the petitioner opposed, leading to its withdrawal. Fresh trademark applications were also opposed and remained pending before the Trade Marks Registry.

While these trademark disputes were unresolved, the respondent obtained a copyright registration in 2024 for an artistic work and packaging label bearing the ZOOOK mark. The petitioner challenged that copyright registration before the Delhi High Court.

The timeline of events was central to the outcome. Because the trademark applications had been opposed and either withdrawn or left pending, there was no settled trademark right in the respondent's favour when it obtained the copyright registration over the same label. The Court therefore treated the copyright registration as resting on an unstable base from the very beginning, and saw the attempt to assert exclusivity through copyright as an effort to sidestep the scrutiny that trademark law would have applied.

Section 45 of the Copyright Act

The Court focused on Section 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which governs applications for registration of copyright. Where the work consists of or contains a trademark or could be used in relation to goods or services, the applicant must file a certificate from the Registrar of Trade Marks as part of the process.

The Court found that the foundation of the respondent's copyright registration was flawed, observing in effect that the starting point of the registration journey was incorrect. It set aside the related search certificate and revoked the copyright registration for the ZOOOK label.

Copyright Cannot Override a Disputed Trademark

The central principle is that a party cannot use copyright registration to secure exclusive rights over a mark when its trademark claim is opposed or unresolved. Allowing this would let applicants bypass the scrutiny that trademark law applies to confusingly similar or contested marks.

This protects the integrity of both the Trade Marks Register and the Copyright Register, and prevents conflicting rights from arising over the same commercial sign. The interplay between the two regimes is also relevant when businesses plan to register a copyright in India.

A Growing Trend in IP Enforcement

The ruling adds to a series of recent Delhi High Court decisions sharpening the contours of intellectual property protection in India, including the Court's finding on keyword advertising in the Google and Hindware trademark case.

Together, these decisions show courts taking a careful, structured approach to overlapping IP rights and to attempts to use one form of protection to gain an advantage that another form would deny.

Lessons for Brand Owners

The decision carries practical lessons for any business that builds value in a brand. The first is that copyright and trademark protect different things, and one cannot be used to make up for a weakness in the other.

Copyright protects the original artistic expression in a logo or label, such as the particular design, layout and artwork. Trademark protects the use of a sign to distinguish goods or services in trade. A label can attract both, but the rights are assessed separately and on their own terms.

A clean clearance process before adopting a mark is equally important. A proper search reduces the risk of adopting a sign that is already claimed by someone else, and it strengthens any registration that follows.

Consistency also matters. A business that pursues trademark and copyright protection in a coordinated way, with accurate disclosures to each registry, is far better placed to enforce its rights and to withstand a challenge.

Finally, the case shows that registrations are not unassailable. A registration obtained on a flawed foundation can be revoked, so the integrity of the original application is just as important as the certificate that results from it.

Key Takeaways

Businesses should not treat copyright registration as a substitute for, or shortcut around, a contested trademark. Where a label contains a mark, the trademark position must be sound before copyright is relied upon.

The case underlines the value of careful clearance searches and consistent IP strategy. Brand owners who maintain clean registrations across both registers are far better placed to enforce their rights and to resist challenges.