Our Associate, Nikita Lakhani discusses “‘Spirit’ of Law on protecting the Well-known GI-Scotch Whisky” Recently, the Delhi High Court in Scotch Whisky Association v Unibev Limited, granted an interim injunction in favour of plaintiff for infringement of its registered Geographical Indication (“GI”), “Scotch Whisky”. The plaintiff, an association incorporated with the object of protecting and promoting interests of Scotch whisky trade, stated that Scotch Whisky, a world-renowned GI for whisky produced in Scotland, is the subject of Registration No. 151 in Class 33 of the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999 (“GI Act”). The plaintiff contended that any whisky which is not Scotch Whisky, if sold or advertised bearing an indication or reference to Scottish origin, is likely to mislead members of trade and public while also violating the plaintiff’s statutory and common law rights in the GI. The plaintiff also submitted that whiskies with a higher age statement command a higher price and use of misleading age statements on whiskies violates the Scotch Whisky Regulation, 2009, while also being an act of unfair competition and infringement under the GI Act. The plaintiff averred that the defendant was wrongfully advertising and selling its blended scotch whisky called “STROTTS” with the phrase “Product of Scotland” and using misleading statements in relation to the maturation age of whisky, such as “Blended with upto 18-year-old Scotch and Matured Indian Malts”. The plaintiff contended that the acts of the defendant are violative of both the GI Act and the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006 and constitute false trade description within the meaning of Sections 2(1)(za) and 2(1)(i) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. On the other hand, the counsel for defendant raised questions regarding the jurisdiction of the suit and stated that the plaintiff has been unable to satisfy the court as to what provisions bar the defendant from representing the age of blended Scotch as depicted on defendant’s labels. The court, after hearing the contentions of both the parties, held that, prima facie, the phrase used on the labels indicating the maturation age of the whiskeys may deceive an unwary customer of average intelligence. The court, on the basis of the above findings, concluded that this is an attempt by the defendant to pass off their scotch as that of a higher aged blend. Accordingly, based on the above, the Court granted an interim injunction directing the defendant to mention the minimum age of the scotch whiskey that has been blended with the Indian malts on its labels, advertisements, etc. The above noted order reiterates the protection of Scotch Whisky as a Geographical Indication while also regulating labels of spirits by directing that the youngest age of the spirit should be depicted on the bottle so as to avoid any confusion as to the age of the spirit.

Our Associate, Vishesh Kumar discusses “A Legal Shield for COVISHIELD” Over the last year, while the world struggled with the COVID virus and pharmaceutical companies raced to create a vaccine, IP enthusiasts throughout the world wondered about the legal (and moral) ramifications of COVID formative marks and their registration. Interestingly, one such question came up before the Pune District Court where the plaintiff, Cutis Biotech, filed a suit alleging passing off against Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer of a COVID-19 vaccine in India under the mark COVISHIELD. The plaintiff contended that, in April 2020, it coined the word COVISHIELD and applied for registration for the mark in Class 5 in respect of veterinary, ayurvedic, allopathic, medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The plaintiff further claimed that, in May 2020, it started using the mark for surface sprays and sanitizers and submitted invoices and sales figures in support of its contentions. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know of the defendant’s vaccine named COVISHIELD. The plaintiff contended that, owing to a common field of activity and the plaintiff being the prior user, the defendant’s use of the COVISHIELD mark is clearly violative of its rights. On the other hand, counsel for defendant argued that the goods of the parties are clearly dissimilar and owing to the dissimilarity coupled with nature of products, visual appearance and other factors, there exists no likelihood of confusion. The defendant also argued that since the plaintiff had only started using the mark recently, it had built up no goodwill or reputation in the mark. The defendant also argued that a grant of an injunction to the plaintiff, at this stage, will surely harm the country’s fight against the COVID-19 virus. Lastly, the defendant also argued that plaintiff had not approached this court with clean hands and had actively concealed the application the plaintiff had filed for the mark COVISHIELD in Class 5 covering vaccines for human use. The court, after perusing the arguments and case laws submitted by both parties, held that prima facie, the visual appearances of both products is totally different. The court also held that, in addition to visual appearance, the purpose and consumers of the product are totally different. In this regard, the court also gave due weightage to the fact that presently only the Indian government is purchasing the defendant’s vaccines under the COVISHIELD mark as well as the fact that there has been no attempt on part of the defendant to mislead or deceive consumers. The court also considered precedent law to hold that simply because the defendant had applied for registration for a broad specification of goods, it will not grant it monopoly over all the goods covered by that Nice Classification, if use of the mark is restricted to only very specific goods. In light of the above, the court held that the plaintiff had failed to satisfy the necessary elements to prove passing off and there was no prima facie case or likelihood of confusion. On the contrary, the court held that the balance of convenience was actually in the defendant’s favour since, if the defendant was restrained from using the COVISHIELD mark at this stage, it would cause great hardship to the people of the country. On the other hand, in the event an injunction is not granted, the plaintiff’s goods could continue to be sold in the market without any confusion. Lastly, while refusing the injunction, the court also took into account the fact that the plaintiff had indeed concealed a material fact and not approached the court with clean hands. This is surely an interesting development where the court has taken into account greater public good in a trademark case while also drawing a distinction between goods covered by the same Nice Classification. While goods falling in the same class are often deemed to be similar/related, the Court, in this case, did an appreciable job of inferring prior judgments in the correct manner to disallow monopoly over all goods of a class when the use itself is limited to certain specific goods. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see if the plaintiff decides to appeal against the order and approach the High Court.

Our Associate, Rishikaa discusses “Rules Governing the Law of Designs Amended!“ On January 25, 2021, the Government of India announced some significant amendments to the rules governing the law of designs. The most significant changes introduced by the new rules are as follows: Some of these changes are long awaited and, therefore, very welcome. These rules are yet another attempt by the government to strive towards harmonization and modernization of the rules governing the law relating to designs. Moreover, there is no doubt, that the reduced fee structure for start-ups will only encourage them.

Our Associate, Rishikaa discusses “DELHI HIGH COURT RESTRAINS VAISHALI TRAVELS FROM THE USING THE TRADEMARK VOLVO” Recently the Delhi High Court passed an ex-parte interim injunction against Vaishali Travels restraining it from using the mark VOLVO as a part of its domain name and in relation to services such as online booking of bus tickets, live tracking of buses, telephonic booking of bus tickets, provided through its website www.vaishalivolvo.com. AB Volvo, the Plaintiff, a multinational automotive manufacturer, filed a suit against Vaishali Travels that was using the mark VOLVO as a part of its domain name, VAISHALIVOLVO.COM, its online trading name, as part of email addresses, and meta-tags on the source code of the website. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant’s activities infringe its registered trade mark VOLVO that the Plaintiff had adopted in 1915. AB Volvo further submitted that it had established a flagship company in India in 1996 and had used the mark Volvo in India for years. It also placed reliance on Bombay High Court’s decision in Aktiebolaget Volvo of Sweden vs. Volvo Steels Ltd. of Gujarat, 1998 PTC (18) 47, in which the Bombay High Court declared the VOLVO mark as well-known. The Court held that AB Volvo had made out a prima facie case and the balance of favor was in its favour. It opined that the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss in the absence of an ex parte interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court ruled against Vaishali Travels restraining it as well as its subsidiaries, affiliates, franchisees, proprietors, officers, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, and representatives from using the mark VOLVO or any other deceptively similar or identical mark on its website, online trading name and in relation to the services provided on and through its platform as well as third party websites, till the next hearing. Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. V. Vaishali Travel & Anr.., Delhi High Court CS(COMM) 6/2021, Order dt. 11.01.2021

Our Associate, Anand Kumar discusses “Every Green And Yellow Colored With Double Dimple Designed Soap Is Not Dettol: Delhi High Court” The Delhi High Court denied an interim injunction to RB Health (US) LLC and Anr. (“Plaintiff”) who sought to restrain Dabur India Ltd (“Defendant”) from using a shape of a soap bar bearing the mark SANITIZE and other features of the soap bar. The Plaintiff alleged that the shape and configuration of the Defendant’s soap bar was copied from the Plaintiff’s registered design. Further, the Plaintiff also alleged that several other features of the Defendant’s soap (SANITIZE) were similar the Plaintiff’s soap (DETTOL) bearing the taglines (‘be 100 % sure’, ‘everyday protection against wide range of unseen germs’, etc.), colors (i.e., green and orange), packaging containing the overlapping plus sign and device of sword. The Defendant challenged the legality of the Plaintiff’s registered design. It contended that, on the day when the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of the design, the design was not new or novel. As per the Defendant, other known registered designs similar to the Plaintiff’s registered design, including one in name of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), were already in the public domain i.e., published. The Plaintiff contended that the alleged challenge to its registered design by the Defendant cannot be sustained because firstly, HUL’s design registration is not similar, secondly, registration of a design outside India does not constitute the prior registration under the Act and thirdly, HUL’s design registration does not constitute the prior publication. The Court analysed the table set out above and observed that the Defendant had, prima facie, established that there was a serious and credible challenge that the Plaintiff’s subject design registration was new or original. The Court noted that the principle feature of the Plaintiff’s design registration was the rounded corners and the two (2) “dimples” on either side of the soap bars. HUL’s designs, that were published on 28.02.1989 and 31.01.1995, were similar to the Plaintiff’s design registration. As per the Court, the main features of the soap bars i.e., rounded corners and dimpled sides were apparent in the design registration of the Plaintiff. On the Court’s observation, counsel for the Plaintiff argued that registrations of known and similar designs outside the country would not ipso facto lead to cancellation of designs registered in India. Counsel contented that such prior designs must be registered in India. The Court agreed with this argument and observed that there is no territorial embargo in respect of the prior publication. The Court clarified that insofar as prior publication is concerned, it should [if it is a design on paper] depict the shape or other features of the article which are clear to the eye, as it was evident, in this case, from the WIPO search report. As per the Court, the ocular impression should be the same as one would experience of the design-in-issue if it were to be applied to a physical object. If such a situation applies, as it does, in this case, then, it would fall within the purview of prior publication as enumerated under relevant provision of Act [Section 4 (b) read with Section 19(1)(b)]. In other words, the prior publication [in this case of HUL] would fulfil the indicia of being in ‘tangible form’ or use prior to the date of filing of the Plaintiff’s application for the registration of the soap design. On the issue of the passing off, the Court observed that for such action the Plaintiffs must fulfil the classical trinity test enumerated as below: A comparison of the packaging of the rival products is shown below: The Court observed that, while applying the first indicia set out hereinabove, the difference between reputation and goodwill has to be borne in mind. While goodwill is inextricably linked to territory, reputation may extend beyond the geographical area where business is carried out. Therefore, in a case, where a Plaintiff institutes a passing off action, it is incumbent upon him to demonstrate that he has, inter alia, goodwill in the jurisdiction over which the concerned court has sway. Noting the facts of the present case, the Court observed that Plaintiff’s claim as regards the colour (green and orange) and smell of the soap bar were non-sustainable because there were enough materials on record put forth by the Defendant to show that several soap bars in the market have similar features, even if not identical. As regards the taglines such as “Be 100% Sure”; “Everyday protection against a wide range of germs”; “Germ protection for the whole family”; and “protection from 100 illness causing germs” and indications of device of a sword and an overlapping plus (+), the Court observed that neither the taglines nor the indications/signs are registered with the trademark authority. Moreover, since competing products were hygiene-products, the Court concluded that taglines and indications/signs used by the Plaintiffs appear to be “customary” in the current language of the trade for the purpose of designating hygiene-products, which includes, soap bars. Lastly the Court remarked that atleast, at this stage, it could not find enough material to conclude that the taglines had acquired the secondary meaning. On the point of misrepresentation, the Court observed that passing-off is a tort of deceit and when one looks at the get-up adopted by Defendant, it is clear, at least at this stage, that it does not intend to misrepresent that the soap bar manufactured by it originates from the Plaintiffs. The Court observed that the Defendant’s packaging boldly bears the mark “DABUR”. Thus, the Court opined that the cumulative effect of the packaging adopted by Defendant was one which sought to distinguish its product from that of the Plaintiffs. Most importantly, the Court observed that while balancing the rights of the Plaintiffs and Defendant in case of the infringement and passing-off, it must take into account the interest of the public at large as well i.e., creation of an environment which is conducive to a healthy competition amongst manufacturers

Our Associate, Roohan Kathuria discusses “Defendant Restrained from Using Plaintiff’s Designs, Label Marks and Trade Dress!” Recently the Delhi Hight Court decreed a suit in favour of Freemans Measures Private Limited, a company engaged in manufacture and sale of high-quality measuring tapes in various models and designs. By the decree, the defendants were restrained from dealing in measuring tapes with designs, trade dresses and label marks identical/similar to those of the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant No. 4, Ambika Overseas, is engaged in dealing in measuring tapes and tools, etc. that have designs identical to the plaintiff’s registered designs which are non-functional. Moreover, the label marks/trade dresses used by the defendants are near identical reproduction of the plaintiff’s product packaging/trade dress/label mark for its measuring tapes sold under the well-known trademarks HI-formative marks such as HI-WIDE, HI-16, HI-19 and HI-25 and the mark CENTIFLEX. The plaintiff claims to have earlier rights in these designs, label marks and trade dresses. It is the plaintiff’s claim that, sometime in the year 2012, it learned about the defendant’s use of a label mark/ trade dress of defendants’ measuring tape bearing the mark and label MI-19 As per the plaintiff, the mark MI-19 was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s HI-formative marks and that the defendants had made minor/insignificant changes in the labels of the tape. Further, as per the plaintiffs, the label mark/trade dress of defendants’ measuring tapes under the mark CONFLEX was similar to plaintiff’s label mark/trade dress of its measuring tapes bearing the mark CENTIFLEX. The plaintiff contented that the products of respective parties are sold in markets in rural and semi-rural areas where people are not educated. Consequently, confusion is bound to occur between the products. The plaintiff also claims that the defendants’ mala fide intention to ride upon the goodwill of the plaintiff and pass-off its goods as those of the plaintiff. The case of the defendants is that they have never used the marks MI-19 and CONFLEX for any of their products and do not intend to use these marks in future as well. Instead, the defendants claimed that they are using the marks A-13, A-16, A-19, where A stands for AMBIKA and the denominations 13/16/19 stand for the width of the steel tape. The defendants claimed that these marks are unique and distinct in appearance and bear no resemblance to any of the plaintiff’s marks and as such, the question of infringement, passing-off, dilution or tarnishing holds no merit. The defendants submitted that shape of the measuring tape manufactured by the plaintiff is not novel or original. Rather the shape has been used by every other measuring tape manufacturer in every part of the world. The defendants further contended that since the products bearing the marks in question have not been used by the defendants, there is no question of a huge undeserved profits being made by the defendants by riding on the plaintiff’s goodwill. The plaintiff contended that the defendants had published an advertisement in the magazine The Yellow Pages showing products with the designs, label marks and marks M-19 and CONFLEX and that the defendants are making contradictory statements regarding their use of the label marks, designs, etc. Further, as per the plaintiff, the defendants only changed their mark from MI-19 to A-19 after a matter resolved between the parties in 2012. The plaintiff also contended that even the modified/ amended mark and trade dress is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s marks and/or trade dress. The court took cognizance of the plaintiff’s registered designs, copyright, etc. and held that the rival designs, etc. were similar/identical. Consequently, based on the averments and materials on record, the court held that the suit be decreed in favor of the plaintiff. Citation: Freemans Measures Pvt Ltd. v. Mankaran Bhandari & Ors.- CS(COMM) 981/2016. Order dt. 22.12.2020.

Our Associate, Rishikaa discusses “Delhi High Court Restrains Sri Balaji Sales Corporation From Using The Trademark ‘ODDY’ “ The Delhi High Court in Atul Paper Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Balaji Sales Corporation, granted an ad-interim injunction to Atul Paper Pvt. Ltd. (“APPL”) against the defendant, Sri Balaji Sales Corporation’s (“SBSC”) use of the mark TM ODDY BAGS Device on and in relation to school bags. A visual comparison of the marks is shown below: APPL’s claim was based on the registration of its mark ODDY in the year 2015, in Classes 16 and 35. In addition to its statutory rights in the trademark, APPL also asserted its prior common law rights owing to use of the ODDY mark on and in relation to paper and stationery material since 1998 and its impressive sales figures, as well as its copyright in the ODDY Device mark. SBSC, that had been using the mark in relation to manufacture and sale of school bags, contended that its mark could be distinguished from APPL’s ODDY mark due to the use of the words ‘TM’ and ‘BAGS’ before and after the word ODDY. SBSC further contended that the goods covered by both the marks are dissimilar as APPL does not engage in the manufacture or sale of school bags. The court rejected SBSC’s submissions and noted that ODDY was a coined word which was not common to trade. The court held that the word ODDY formed the very core of SBSC’s mark and that merely adding the words TM and BAGS would not affect the core of the mark. The court further held that SBSC’s use of the mark on bags would be deemed to be use on goods that are related to the goods covered by APPL’s registrations since the respective goods are related/ allied. The Court concluded that owing to SBSC’s use of an identical mark on allied goods, APPL had made out a prima facie case for the grant of an ad-interim injunction and had established that the balance of convenience was in its favor. SBSC was accordingly barred from using the TM ODDY BAGS mark until the next hearing.

Our Senior Associate, Deeksha Anand discusses “Trade Mark Protection for Store Layouts in India” Over the years, the scope of unconventional/ non-traditional trade marks has expanded substantially. A new addition to this category of marks is the design/trade dress and layout of store interiors and exteriors (“Store Layouts”). The protection of Store Layouts as a form of intellectual property assumes importance in today’s highly competitive world where brand owners are leaving no stone unturned to provide consumers an enriching and wholesome experience, rather than offering just a service. When consumers start identifying Store Layouts with a particular brand, the protection of the IP in such a layout, especially to bolster any future enforcement efforts, ought to be explored. While there is no explicit mention of protection of Store Layouts under the Indian trade mark law, the definition of “trade mark”[1] is broad enough to protect any mark which is capable of being represented graphically and functions as a source identifier. The Registry’s e-filing portal allows for filing of applications under the following categories/types – word, device, shape of goods, three dimensional, colour and sound. Unlike some foreign Trade Mark Offices, that require applications for Store Layouts to be filed as three-dimensional marks or under the “others” category, it appears that the Indian Trade Marks Registry (“Registry”) requires these applications to be filed as device marks. As an example, the application[2] for the layout of “The Vedic restaurant” (shown below), which was initially filed as a three-dimensional mark, was required to be amended to a device mark by the Registry. Another crucial aspect of applications to register Store Layouts is the description of the mark and the features of the mark in which rights are sought to be claimed. In the absence of any guidelines for using dotted or straight lines to depict the parts of the mark in which protection is claimed, a detailed description of the mark highlighting the unique placement of the articles, the colour scheme, the wording in the mark, spacing between articles, theme and get up, etc., assumes automatic significance in India. As a corollary, one of the credible challenges that applications for Store Layouts face, is proving “distinctiveness”. While the Registry does not seem to label such applications as inherently non-distinctive – the application[3] for the design of the entrance of a MARY COHR salon and layout of its interior (shown below), for instance, was registered without receiving any objections – more often, than not, such applications are objected on the ground that the mark is non-distinctive and, as such, not capable of distinguishing the goods/ services of one person from those of others. Examples of some marks that were objected on non-distinctiveness grounds are shown below. Annexing pictures of the actual stores, showing evidence of use, if any, stressing on the description of mark and consistency in the store layouts worldwide, for instance, could be helpful in overcoming such an objection on non-distinctiveness. While it would be reasonable to believe that applications for store layouts would seek protection in respect of services, this may not necessarily be true. For instance, many applications for the layout of HEALTH & GLOW stores (see, an example, below) have been accepted by the Registry in respect of cosmetics and pharmaceutical products in Classes 3 and 5, respectively. While the registration of a Store Layout confers statutory rights in it, thereby opening the doors to the remedy of trade mark infringement, the trade dress of Store Layouts can also be protected through the common law remedy of passing-off. The landmark Delhi High Court ruling in Colgate Palmolive Company v. Anchor Health and Beauty Products[8], observing trade dress to be the overall impression that a customer gets as to the source and origin of the goods from visual impression of colour combination, shape of the container, packaging etc. is of prominence here. The recognition of Store Layouts as a form of intellectual property has reinforced the importance of a consumer’s visual perception of her/his surroundings, that should be tapped by brand owners to enhance their brand recall value. Meanwhile, caveat interior designers. [1] Section 2(zb) of The Trade Marks Act, 1999 defines “trade mark” as a mark capable of being represented graphically and which is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others and may include shape of goods, their packaging and combination of colours…” [2] Application No. 4100482 [3] Application No. 4073262 [4] Application No. 4191623 [5] Application No. 4134918 [6] Application No. 4169443 [7] IRDI No. 2890926 (IR No. 1224986) [8] 108 (2003) DLT 51

Our Associate, Madhurima Gadre discusses “Madras High Court restrains Kute Group from using the mark TIRUMALAA” Recently the Madras High Court granted Tirumala Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) an interim injunction restraining Swaraj India Industries Limited’s (“Defendant”) use of the mark TIRUMALAA and any deceptively similar mark. The Plaintiff, the proprietor and user of the marks TIRUMALA and THIRUMALA in respect of dairy products, had filed a suit against the Defendant’s use of the nearly identical mark, TIRUMALAA, for identical goods. The Plaintiff, who claims to have a strong presence in the state of Maharashtra, alleged that the Defendant, who is also based out of Maharashtra, had dishonestly adopted the deceptively similar mark TIRUMALAA to encash upon the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff. The Defendant questioned the Plaintiff’s monopoly over the term TIRUMALA, which is the name of a town in Chittor, Andhra Pradesh, and forms part of the corporate name of around three hundred (300) companies in India. The Defendant also pointed out that the Plaintiff, in its response to an Examination Report issued by the Trade Marks Registry in relation to one of its marks, had distinguished its mark from the mark THIRUMALA (in English and Telugu). Despite these contentions, the court noted that the Defendant, in its counter affidavit, had not denied the Plaintiff’s claims that it has a strong presence in Maharashtra and that the Defendant was attempting to solicit the distributors of the Plaintiff. As such, the court observed that the Defendant’s lack of denial of these crucial claims must be construed as an admission of facts. Given that the Defendant was using a nearly identical mark for identical goods so as to draw away the Plaintiff’s customers, its actions amount to infringement and passing off of the Plaintiff’s marks. Therefore, the court granted an interim injunction in the Plaintiff’s favour. Tirumala Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Swaraj India Industries Ltd. and Ors., decision dt. 15.10.2020 in C.S (Comm. Div.). 190 of 2020

Our Associate, Vishesh Kumar discusses “Mattel’s Rainforest Family protected by the Delhi High Court” Recently the Delhi High Court, in Mattel Inc. v. Present Enterprises & Ors., granted an injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from infringing the copyright in characters of the ‘Rainforest Family’, a set of six animal cartoon characters created by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, one of the world’s largest children entertainment company, contended that it adopted the mark KICK AND PLAY for game and playthings in the year 2010 and started using the said trademark in India since 2012. It was further argued that, in the year 2012, the plaintiff also designed and adopted a set of six cartoon animal characters titled as ‘Rainforest Family’. Furthermore, in support of its contentions, the plaintiff also presented promotional activities undertaken by it along with its trademark applications for the KICK AND PLAY mark. As per the plaintiff, the defendants are selling products violating the copyright of the plaintiff in the six ‘Rainforest Family’ characters and also listing their products under the KICK AND PLAY mark while also copying the shape of the product. In view of the above and the fact that the plaintiff’s copyright granted in USA in respect of the six characters of the ‘Rainforest Family’ would also extend to India owing to the International Copyright Order and the Indian Copyright Act, the Delhi High Court held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and granted an injunction qua copyright infringement. The defendants were also asked to takedown URL’s containing the infringing material within 48 hours. However, as respect the trademark violation of the mark ‘KICK AND PLAY’ as also the design mark, the Court wanted to provide an opportunity to the defendants before passing any substantive order. The above-noted order, once again, reiterates the fact that it is not imperative for a copyright holder to have a registration in India per se. Rather, copyright registration in a country which is a signatory to the International Copyright Order would stand extended to India as well.