Background & Legal Issue:-
This case addressed a critical question in Indian copyright law: Is registration of copyright mandatory to initiate infringement proceedings? The Bombay High Court answered in the negative, providing clarity that aligns Indian practice with the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, to which India is a signatory.
Key Legal Findings:-
1. Automatic Copyright Protection The Court reiterated that under the Copyright Act, 1957, protection is granted automatically upon the creation of an original work, and registration is not a precondition to enforcement.
2. Berne Convention Compliance
The Court emphasized India's obligations under the Berne Convention, citing the principle that copyright protection must not depend on any formalities. This was supported by the following key articles:
o Article 5(2):
“The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work.” This article affirms that copyright protection must be granted without requiring registration or any other procedural condition.
o Article 5(1):
“Authors shall enjoy, in respect of works for which they are protected under this Convention, in countries of the Union other than the country of origin, the rights which their respective laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals, as well as the rights specially granted by this Convention.” This underlines the international obligation to ensure minimum standards of protection, including formalities-free enforcement.
3. Distinction from Trademark Law:
The Court clarified the fundamental difference between copyright and trademark enforcement frameworks. While trademark rights under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 require registration for enforcement, copyright protection is not dependent on registration, even for initiating legal proceedings
4. Overruling of Erroneous Precedent:
The Court overruled the earlier ruling in Dhiraj Dharamdas Dewani v. Sonal Info Systems Pvt. Ltd.( 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 392, which had incorrectly held registration as a prerequisite. The Court labelled this decision per incuriam (decided in ignorance of binding precedent and international law). In this case, the plaintiff, Dhiraj Dharamdas Dewani, claimed ownership of certain copyright-protected materials, alleging that the defendant, Sonal Info Systems Pvt. Ltd., had infringed his copyright. The plaintiff, however, had not registered the copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957.
Key Issue in the Case:
Whether a civil suit for copyright infringement can be initiated without registration of the copyrighted work.
Court’s Holding:
The Bombay High Court wrongly held that registration of copyright was mandatory before a civil suit for infringement could be filed. It relied on Section 51 and Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and interpreted them to mean that in the absence of registration, the owner could not maintain a suit for infringement.
Why the Decision Was Flawed:
1. Contrary to the Copyright Act
The decision failed to acknowledge that Section 45 of the Copyright Act, which deals with registration, is optional—not mandatory. The Act itself clearly provides that copyright subsists from the moment of creation of an original work, not from registration.
2. Ignored the Berne Convention
The ruling was inconsistent with international obligations, especially Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention, which mandates that copyright protection must not be subject to any formality.
3. Lack of Precedent Consideration
The Court did not consider binding precedents or broader principles of IP law, making the ruling per incuriam(rendered in ignorance of the law).
Critical Observation
This judgment is a vital clarification within Indian IP jurisprudence. By reaffirming the automatic and unconditional nature of copyright protection, the Bombay High Court ensures compliance with India's international obligationsunder the Berne Convention and avoids unnecessary procedural hurdles for rights holders. It strengthens legal certainty for both domestic and foreign creators, ensuring that the act of creation itself—not registration—is the basis for enforceable rights in India. It also realigns domestic case law by correcting a previously misleading precedent. However, the judgment also indirectly highlights the strategic utility of registration. While not mandatory, a registered copyright still serves as prima facie evidence of ownership, aiding in quicker remedies such as injunctions and damages in infringement suits
Conclusion:
The Sanjay Soya decision is a landmark ruling in reinforcing India’s commitment to international copyright norms, particularly the Berne Convention’s core principles. It clarifies that in India, original works enjoy copyright protection from the moment of creation, without the need for registration—a stance that strengthens the creative ecosystem and aligns with global best practices.
The Dhiraj Dharamdas Dewani case represents a misinterpretation of the law, which was later corrected by the Bombay High Court to ensure alignment with both domestic statutory law and international obligations. The overruling of this decision reaffirms the principle that formal registration is not a precondition for copyright enforcement in India.