CHHAYA INDUSTRIES Vs. LUCKNOW SANSTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the counsel for the parties this appeal is taken up for final disposal today itself as the point involved is stated to be short.

(2.) THE appellant had filed an application under Section 50 of the Copyright act, 1957 before the Copyright Board for rectification of the Copyright Register by expunging therefrom entry No. 60580/2002 which was made in respect of label ultra GUIDE at the instance of respondent No. 1 herein. The appellant claimed that the said label was slavish imitation of its label CHHAYA which it adopted for detergent washing powder which it was manufacturing since long. That rectification application was resisted by the respondent herein. The parties after completion of pleadings adduced evidence in support their respective stands before the Copyright Board. During the course of final hearing before the Copyright Board an argument was advanced by the counsel for the respondent herein that there was non-compliance of the provisions of Order XXX pf the Code of Civil Procedure inasmuch as the applicant there which was a partnership firm had not disclosed the names of all its partners. The Copyright Board accepted that argument and vide order dated 25th September, 2008 dismissed the application of the appellant herein as being not maintainable without going into the respective contentions of the parties on merits. Feeling aggrieved by that order of dismissal of its application, this appeal was filed under Section 72 (2) of the Copyright Act by the appellant.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has not opposed this appeal and has submitted that since there was no demand made by the respondent herein before the Copyright Board for disclosure by the petitioner there (appellant herein) of the names of all its partners there was no non-compliance of the provisions of order XXX Rule 2 CPC. He has also conceded even if any such demand had been made and not complied with by the appellant herein the only consequence could be stay of the proceedings before the Copyright Board. This is also the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.