Is Copyright Registration Mandatory in India? Debunking Myths

If you’ve ever created something original – a poem, a logo, a piece of code, a song – you may have wondered: do I need to register my copyright to be protected? In India, the answer is no. And yet, this is one of the most persistently misunderstood aspects of copyright law. Many creators, students, and even some practitioners have assumed that an unregistered copyright is an unenforceable one. Indian courts have had to repeatedly step in to correct this misconception. Here is what the law actually says – and what the courts have clarified.

What the Copyright Act, 1957 actually says 🔗

The Copyright Act, 1957 is the primary legislation governing copyright in India. When it comes to registration, the critical provisions are Sections 44 and 45. Section 44 provides for a Register of Copyrights to be maintained at the Copyright Office. Section 45 states that the author, publisher, or owner of copyright in any work “may” make an application to have the particulars of the work entered in the register.

That single word – “may” – is the crux of the matter. As multiple courts have observed, the use of permissive language in Sections 44 and 45 makes it unmistakably clear that registration is an option, not an obligation. There is no provision in the Copyright Act, 1957 that bars an unregistered copyright owner from seeking civil or criminal remedies. In fact, Section 51, which defines copyright infringement, makes no distinction between registered and unregistered works.

Compare this to the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Section 27 of that Act explicitly states that no person is entitled to institute any proceeding for infringement of an unregistered trade mark. This express bar is conspicuously absent in the Copyright Act. Courts have relied on this contrast repeatedly to conclude that copyright protection exists independently of registration.

How the confusion started: the Dhiraj Dewani case 🔗

The misconception about mandatory registration can be traced largely to a 2012 judgment of the Bombay High Court in Dhiraj Dharamdas Dewani v. Sonal Info Systems Pvt. Ltd. In that case, the court held that to invoke civil or criminal remedies under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, the owner must have a valid copyright registration. The court also reasoned that an infringer cannot be expected to know about copyright in a work unless it is registered and published in the Official Gazette.

This judgment became widely cited – and frequently misused by defendants in infringement suits. Parties accused of copying would routinely point to this decision to argue that the plaintiff’s unregistered copyright was unenforceable, effectively using it as a shield against legitimate claims. The Dhiraj case was rampantly used by infringers to undermine the rights of copyright owners – until a later, more carefully reasoned judgment corrected the record.

The landmark correction: Sanjay Soya v. Narayani Trading Company (2021) 🔗

The definitive correction came through a landmark judgment delivered on 9 March 2021 by Justice G.S. Patel of the Bombay High Court in Sanjay Soya Private Limited v. Narayani Trading Company.

The dispute arose over the packaging label of refined soya bean edible oil products. Sanjay Soya Private Limited (SSPL) alleged that Narayani Trading Company (NTC) had adopted a label strikingly similar to its own. NTC countered by relying on the Dhiraj judgment, arguing that since SSPL’s label was not registered as a copyright, it had no standing to sue for infringement.

Justice Patel rejected this argument comprehensively. The court made the following key findings:

• The Dhiraj judgment was per incuriam: It had been decided without considering prior judgments of the same court that had taken the opposite view. A decision rendered in ignorance of binding precedent carries no legal authority.
• None of the provisions of the Copyright Act require prior registration as a condition for seeking remedies under the Act.
• Copyright confers rights from the moment of creation. The Act gives a range of rights and privileges to the first owner of copyright without requiring prior registration.
• Section 51 is not limited to registered works. The infringement provision applies to all works, registered or not.
• The legislative history supports this view. The question of compulsory registration was deliberately considered during the drafting of the Copyright Act – and no such requirement was included in the final legislation.

The judgment was subsequently noted in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (Oxford Academic) as bringing Indian law back in line with international copyright principles, resolving the ambiguity the Dhiraj case had created.

The international framework: Berne Convention and TRIPS 🔗

The Indian position is also firmly grounded in India’s international treaty obligations. India has been a signatory to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works since 28 April 1928. One of the cornerstone principles of the Berne Convention is automatic protection – copyright subsists from the moment a work is created and fixed in a tangible form. Copyrighted works are considered protected as soon as the work is manifested in a physical form and does not require registration.

Crucially, Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention states that protection must not be conditional upon compliance with any formality. This means a member country cannot make registration a prerequisite for copyright protection. India, as a signatory, is bound by this principle. Similarly, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), to which India is also a party, incorporates the substantive provisions of the Berne Convention and reinforces the principle of automatic protection.

In Sanjay Soya, Justice Patel explicitly relied on both the Berne Convention and TRIPS to further support the conclusion that compulsory registration is inconsistent with India’s international copyright obligations.

Copyright protection vs. trademark protection: a critical distinction 🔗

A major reason the confusion around copyright registration has persisted is that people often conflate copyright with trademark law – two distinct areas of intellectual property with fundamentally different rules.

Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, only a registered proprietor has the right to sue for trademark infringement. An unregistered mark can only be protected through a passing-off action under common law. Copyright law operates on an entirely different principle. There is no equivalent of Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act in the Copyright Act. Copyright protection attaches automatically to the original work and belongs to the first owner – without any need to approach the Copyright Office.

The Sanjay Soya court was categorical: treating copyright registration as equivalent to trademark registration is legally incorrect. The two regimes serve different purposes and carry different legal consequences.

So why register at all? 🔗

Given that registration is not mandatory, a reasonable question follows: why bother registering? The answer is that while registration is not required for protection, it offers significant practical advantages.

The Register of Copyrights, maintained by the Copyright Office of India, serves as a public record. An entry in this register is treated as prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. In a dispute over ownership, a registration certificate shifts the burden: the other side must disprove what the register records, rather than the owner having to establish ownership from scratch.

Beyond evidence, registration offers other practical benefits. A registered copyright is easier to license or assign in documented transactions. It can be used as collateral for raising loans or investment. In cross-border disputes, a registration record provides a clear paper trail. And while an unregistered owner can certainly sue for infringement, having a registration can significantly simplify the litigation process.

The current legal position, summarised 🔗

The law in India today is settled: copyright protection in India is automatic and arises from the act of creation, not registration. The Copyright Act, 1957, uses permissive language in Sections 44 and 45, meaning registration is entirely voluntary. Section 51 does not restrict infringement actions to registered works. The Dhiraj Dewani judgment, which had suggested otherwise, has been overruled as per incuriam by the Bombay High Court in Sanjay Soya (2021). This position is consistent with India’s obligations under the Berne Convention and TRIPS.

What this means practically: if you write an original novel, design an original logo, compose an original piece of music, or create any original work, copyright protection vests in you the moment the work is fixed in a tangible form. You do not need a certificate from the Copyright Office to enforce that right. However, getting your work registered is a smart, proactive step – it turns your ownership into a documented, publicly verifiable fact, which can make all the difference if a dispute ever reaches a courtroom.

What do you think? Given that copyright protection is automatic in India, do you think creators – especially independent artists, writers, and designers – are sufficiently aware of their rights without registration? And should the Copyright Act be amended to make the voluntary nature of registration even more explicit, perhaps with a dedicated provision spelling it out?

References

1. https://www.copyright.gov.in/Documents/Copyrightrules1957.pdf
2. https://itatonline.org/digest/articles/copyright-registration-is-not-compulsory-to-sue-for-infringement-mumbai-high-court/
3. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=fad46b31-7c90-408f-ab4d-d7e6e83418ad
4. https://www.legalservicesindia.com/law/article/1887/7/Registration-Of-Copyright-Not-Mandatory-For-Seeking-Protection-Under-Copyright-Act-Bombay-HC
5. https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/article-abstract/16/10/1034/6440247
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention
7. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/berne_convention
8. https://www.compliancecalendar.in/learn/berne-convention-and-indias-role-in-it
9. https://copyright.gov.in/