case study on copyright in india

Top 5 Copyright Cases of 2019 in India

5-copyright-cases-2019-india

Top 5 Copyright Cases in 2019

1. sajeev pillai v. venukunnapalli & anr.

Does the author of work, even after the assignment of work, have special rights to claim authorship of his work provided under Section 57(1) of the Copyright Act?

The appellant, Sajeev Pillai, a film director, and a scriptwriter, claimed to have researched the history of the grand festival Mamankam and prepared a script for a movie based on the same epic. He met VenuKunnapalli and signed an MoU with Kavya Film Company which was associated with Kunnapalli. Sajeev was initially appointed as the director, but his service was terminated and replaced by someone else. The movie’s shooting was after that completed, which Sajeev alleged was done by mutilating, distorting, and modifying his script. Sajeev, in light of that, filed a suit seeking various reliefs. An interim injunction application was filed to restrain the respondents from releasing, publishing, distributing, and exploiting the film and issuing pre-release publicity without providing good authorship credits to Pillai as per film industry standards.

In deciding the issue, the Court noted that the first sub-section of Section 57(1) provides the author to restrain third parties. The second sub-section provides the author the entitlement to claim damages by such a third party for any distortion, mutilation, or other modifications to his work or any other action that would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. This provided the appellant an unparalleled advantage in the case and that his copyright assignment of the work would not exhaust the legal right to claim authorship over it.

2. Tips Industries v Wynk Music

Does a statutory licensing scheme exist under the Copyright Act for online streaming services?

Background: The dispute centers around section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957, which provides for a statutory licensing scheme, whereby any ‘broadcasting organization’ desirous of ‘communicating to the public’ any sound recording can obtain a statutory license to do so provided they pay royalty rates to the copyright owners at rates fixed by the Intellectual Property Law Board.

Tips Industries Ltd (Plaintiff) is an Indian music label that exercises copyright over a significant music repository that, in 2016, granted Wynk Music Ltd (Defendant) a license to access this music repository. At the expiry of the said license, both parties attempted to renegotiate the licensing conditions. Still, they failed to do so; hence, Wynk took refuge by invoking Section 31D of the Copyright Act. Tips challenged Wynk’s invocation of Section 31D and prosecuted Wynk according to Section 14(1)(e) for breach of their exclusive sound recording rights.

After hearing the contentions of both parties, the Bombay High Court found Wynk guilty of direct infringement on two counts – 1. To offer the copyrighted work under section 14(1) (e) (ii), which allowed the users to download and listen to the plaintiff’s work offline, and 2. Under section 14(1) (e) (iii) for communicating the plaintiff’s works to the users via their streaming service.

In addition to that, the Bombay High Court sought this opportunity to clear out the air regarding the ambiguity that existed concerning online streaming services falling within the scope of Section 31D:

1. Under Section 31D of the Copyright Act, the’ Download / Purchase ‘ of copyrighted works is not covered.

Wynk Music allowed the users to download and store copyrighted music for unlimited future use, which is instituted to be a ‘sale’ and not ‘communication made to the public,’ which constitutes a ‘broadcast’ for Section 31D. Hence, there is no claim for a statutory license for using such copyrighted work by Wynk Music.

2. The application of Section 31D of the Copyright Act does not include Internet broadcasting.

The defendant’s case was based primarily on the presumption that Section 31D covered Internet streaming services under’ radio broadcasting’ as described in a 2016 DPIIT office circular, given that’ radio broadcasting’ included’ internet broadcasting’ under Section 31D.

The Court had an opposing view which resulted in the rejection of the interpretation put forth by the defendant.

The Court found Section 31D to be an exception to copyright, which should only be strictly interpreted. Upon careful examination of the statutory scheme of 31D and the rules accompanying it, it becomes apparent that statutory licensing was intended only to cover radio and television broadcasting and not internet broadcasting. After examining the history associated with Section 31D, the Court derived that, despite the global existence of internet streaming services when the Section was inserted through an Amendment Act of 2012, the legislation, even though aware of it, omitted to include internet streaming services from the ambit of Section 31D.

In addition, the memorandum presented by the defendant does not contain any additional weightage of their claim as a memorandum only acts as ‘guidelines’ and lacks statutory authority and therefore has no influence to the extent of their claim.

The judgment was passed in favor of the plaintiff, and the Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to an interim injunction, having regard to the reality that they had made a prima facie case, and would suffer irreparable harm in the way of lost revenue.

3. Raj Rewal v Union of India &Ors

Whether an Architect, as the creator and legally the ‘author’ of a structure, has a right vested in him to object to such modification or demolition of their work by the owner of the building?

Background: The dispute centers around section 57 of the Copyright Act 1957, under which the plaintiff has filed for a mandatory injunction to reinstate the building according to the original plans. Section 57 of the Copyright Act 1957 provides the author with special rights called ‘moral rights,’ which exists with the author of the work over and above the economic rights of others.

The present case concerns Mr. Raj Rewal, who designed and Mr. Mahendra Raj, who was the structural designer of the Hall of Nations building. The said building was hailed as an icon of modernist Indian architecture and was erected on the Pragati Maidan grounds in New Delhi. The ITPO, in 2016, proposed to demolish the Hall of Nations complex to build an ‘Integrated Exhibition cum Convention Centre.’ Despite several attempts made by Plaintiff to protect the building from demolition, it resulted in what ITPO desired. Post demolition of the building, Plaintiff instituted a suit against the actions of ITPO by claiming that the acts of demolition had derogated Plaintiff’s special rights under Section 57.

Rejecting the plaintiff’s claims, the Court framed the issue as a conflict of two different rights: the architect’s rights under Section 57 and the landowner’s rights to practice acts about their property.

The Court observed that the plaintiff, in this case, cannot be allowed to prevent the demolition of the building by the defendant as it would, in turn, amount to a restriction of the defendant’s right to practice their control over their property and land which is provided to them under Article 300A which is a constitutional right which prevails over the statutory rights of the plaintiff which they claim to exist under Section 57 of Copyright Act, 1957.

The Court further states that the author’s right under Section 57 to prohibit ‘distortion, mutilation or modification of his work does not permit an author to prevent the destruction of their work since “that what cannot be viewed, seen, heard or felt, cannot be imperfect and cannot affect the honor or reputation of the author.”

Therefore, the extent to which the right vested in the architect extends is to prevent the building owner from refraining from making changes in the design made by the architect and passing it off as if the architect made the design.

Further, the Court also relied upon Section 52(1)(x), an exception to the architect’s copyright. The Court reasoned that the ‘reconstruction’ envisaged under Section 52(1)(x) could only occur if the building had already been demolished. Noting that the Copyright Act must be read harmoniously, the Court stated that Section 57 could not reasonably contemplate the right to object to demolishing a building.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the suit due to a lack of cause of action against the demolition of the Hall of Nations.

4. YRF v Sri Sai Ganesh Productions

Whether copyright can exist in a cinematography film independent of the underlying works that it is comprised of? 2. Does the expression under section 14 to ‘make a copy of the film’ mean making a physical copy only? And between the two films, is there a substantial and material similarity?

A copyright infringement suit was filed against Sri Sai Ganesh Productions &Ors by Yash Raj Films Pvt Ltd on the grounds that it blatantly copied the movie Band Baja Baarat produced under the YRF banner and producing Jabardasht which showcased substantial and material similarities in terms of theme, concept, plot, character, sketches, story, script, form and expression amongst other things.

The Court, while determining the first issue, relied on the judgment handed down by the Delhi High Court in the case of MRF Limited v. Metro Tyres Ltd, in which the Court held that copyright exists in the ‘cinematographic film’ independent from other underlying works that come together to constitute it and that there is a requirement of originality to exist in ‘cinematographic films’ which can be read into from Section 13(1)(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957 through Sections 13(3)(a) and 2(d) of the said Act even though it has not been explicitly mentioned.

The Court, while determining the second issue, held that the expression ‘to make a copy of the film’ provided in Section 14(d)(i) of the said Act does not simply mean creating a physical copy of the film by process of duplication. Furthermore, as the movie are protected just like original works , the Court extended the test of originality set out in the case of R.G Anand v. Deluxe Films to distinguish between the two films based on ‘substance, foundation, and kernal’ and understand the viewpoint of an average moviegoer as to whether they would have an unmistakable impression that one work was a copy of the other.

In the instant case, the Court found that the defendants had blatantly copied the plaintiff’s film’s fundamental, essential, and distinctive features.

5. UTV Software Communication Ltd., v.1337X.TO and Ors

How should the Court deal with the hydra-headed ‘Rogue Websites’ which, on being blocked, eventually multiply and resurface as redirect or mirror or alphanumeric websites?

UTV Software Communications Ltd (Plaintiff)., is one such company engaged in creating, producing, and distributing cinematographic content worldwide. The plaintiff has brought a suit against thirty identified websites , multiple John Doe defendants, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Dept of Telecom, and various ISPs. The plaintiff’s contention was based on the fact that the defendant’s websites host and provide access to their copyrighted content which infringes their rights derived from the Copyright Act 1957.

The plaintiffs provided access to a sample of such infringing content as evidence that the websites were primarily engaging in online piracy. Most websites did not respond to the summons because they were hosted outside India. Due to that, an amicus curia was appointed in their place as the issue was about to be a question of law of general public importance.

The most notable contribution this case made was that it introduced a new procedure to extend website blocking injunctions beyond those specified in the court order but also to those websites which are ‘mirror/alphanumeric/redirect’ websites created after the Court already passed the injunction order. This extension was termed a ‘dynamic injunction.’ Singapore High Court’s decision in Disney v M1 was referred by the High Court of Delhi while deciding on the issue where their Court introduced the concept of ‘dynamic injunction’ whereby a plaintiff could file an additional affidavit stating to the Court why a new website fell within the purview of an existing blocking order and forwarding the same to an ISP, which could dispute the merits of the blocking order. This process would help curtail piracy by such ‘Rogue Websites’ and reduce the burden on the copyright owners to go through the challenging route of litigation over and again.

Most Viewed Posts

  • 5 Step Trademark Registration Process in India
  • Patent Filing Procedure and Process in India – An Exclusive Guide
  • What is Trademark and Types of Trademarks
  • Understand Trademark Application Status [The Definitive Guide]
  • Trademark Certificate in India

Recent Posts

Get in touch, related posts.

Forensic Integrity in the Streaming Era- Balancing Copyrights With Advanced DRM Technologies

In today’s digital age, the surge in content streaming has dramatically altered how we consume media by offering ease of…

AI and Copyright Wars The New York Times Takes on OpenAI and Microsoft- for blog

Introduction The New York Times, one of the most respected news organizations, has taken legal action against OpenAI and Microsoft,…

Untitled design

Introduction With the explosion of the internet in the early 2000s, dissemination of information is easier, all the more convenient,…

case study on copyright in india

Copyright piracy and cybercrime: enforcement challenges in India

By Arpan Banerjee and Neil Gane , Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), Hong Kong (SAR), China

In recent years, concerns around online content piracy have increased around the world. The reasons are well-known: a rise in illicit streaming platforms and torrent websites; errant web hosting services that ignore piracy on their servers; and the ease and anonymity offered by certain online intermediaries. A further hazard arises from linkages between piracy and hi-tech cybercrimes. While governments worldwide are grappling with these obstacles, a country that merits special attention is India — where a globally prominent film industry is hindered by widespread piracy and a challenging enforcement environment.

case study on copyright in india

The Piracy-Cybercrime Nexus

In 2010, the Indian government’s Committee on Piracy (CoP) linked piracy with large revenue and job losses. The CoP presciently observed that the advent of smartphones and 3G would make it “much easier to undertake all kinds of film piracy.” Indeed, today, premium streaming services in India are routinely victims of mass piracy. Like in other countries, piracy syndicates in India profit mostly through user subscription fees or advertising revenues. The former method, though brazen, is self-explanatory. The latter method, however, is more insidious, owing to the presence of high-risk advertisers promoting suspicious links. Research, by McAfee , tracking pirated Indian movies and shows, has flagged such links for attempting “to install malware or steal passwords and personal information.”

For further insights, we interviewed Lieutenant-General Rajesh Pant, a noted military cybersecurity veteran now advising the Indian government as National Cyber Security Coordinator (NCSC). Pant explained: “Malware is the starting point of all our cyberattacks, whether it is financial fraud, piracy, data theft or an attack against a strategic sector. Everything starts with luring or clickbaiting.”

Pant listed some recent government initiatives meant to address the threat, including a National Malware Repository and the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C). Notably, the I4C includes a National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal , where cases of piracy — with or without a malware nexus — may be reported. Pant added that piracy and malware attacks were separately punishable under the Copyright Act 1957 and the Information Technology Act 2000.

Criminal Enforcement

Despite the impressive expertise of the NCSC and I4C, India’s federal make-up means that the responsibility to investigate piracy generally lies with state governments. Thus, the success of anti-piracy enforcement in India is often determined by subnational rather than national efforts. Here, the CoP had observed that piracy is “very low in terms of priority in the radar of law enforcement agencies.” Similarly, the International Intellectual Property Alliance has reiterated that criminal enforcement in India is “very daunting” , and marked by “lack of appetite by local enforcement and significant time delays” .

Pursuing pirates outside major cities appears to be particularly challenging. For example, we examined the records of a high-profile piracy case in the city of Jabalpur ( Rahul Mehta v State of Madhya Pradesh (2015) ). In 2015, the Jabalpur police had arrested a piracy syndicate responsible for pirating Baahubali , one of the highest grossing Indian movies of all time. The accused were granted bail by the trial court. However, the case is still pending and there is no record of a hearing after 2017. Gallingly, the accused were arrested again , in Hyderabad, for pirating Baahubali 2 , the film’s equally successful sequel. While in the recent case of Knit Pro International v State of Delhi (2022), the Indian Supreme Court declared criminal copyright infringement as a “non-bailable” and “cognizable” offence (i.e. one is arrestable without warrant and only a court can grant bail), the ground-level impact of the decision is unclear.

case study on copyright in india

Many right holders see the benefits of using criminal prosecutions as deterrents.

The MIPCU Model

At the state level, a novel enforcement model exists in the form of a police unit in the state of Maharashtra (whose capital, Mumbai, is the hub of Bollywood). The Maharashtra government established the Maharashtra Intellectual Property Crime Unit (MIPCU) in 2017 to provide right holders better enforcement.

The MIPCU was established as a division of Maharashtra Cyber, the state police’s cybercrime wing, and structured as a public-private partnership. To learn more, we visited the office of Maharashtra Cyber and met with the officers currently at the helm: Yashasvi Yadav, Special Inspector General of Police, and Sanjay Shintre, Superintendent of Police. We also met with a team of computer professionals, who make up the MIPCU’s engine room, and interviewed them via a written questionnaire (which they preferred to answer collectively, as “Team MIPCU”).

Yadav acknowledged that piracy was “rampant” in India. He also confirmed linkages between piracy and malware, stating: “Certain malware providers use pirated content as a trap. Their main business is not piracy. Their main intention is to infect computers, steal data or install spyware. People are prone to click on freeware and free content.” Yadav added that it was “not an easy task” to track down such malicious actors, who frequently masked their footprints using technologies like VPN and Tor browsers.

Shintre, however, pointed out that cybercriminals did occasionally slip up. He cited the 2021 case of ThopTV, a popular piracy app funded by subscription fees. Apparently, ThopTV’s mastermind had inadvertently disclosed his whereabouts, allowing Maharashtra Cyber to swoop in and arrest him. Interestingly, the arrest had occurred outside Maharashtra, in Hyderabad. In May 2022, an accomplice was arrested by Maharashtra Cyber near Kolkata. Yadav and Shintre explained that Maharashtra Cyber could pursue pirates outside Maharashtra if pirated content was being disseminated within Maharashtra. Such a move, however, is contingent on registering a “First Information Report” (FIR) in Maharashtra. In other words, such action can only take place when a copyright owner files a criminal complaint, after which the police prepare a report.  The onus of filing the complaint lies on the copyright owner.

Despite potential advantages, the MIPCU does have limitations. For a start, the MIPCU cannot directly shut down piracy websites or apps. Such action is the administrative remit of the Indian Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY). Further, Team MIPCU’s responses to our questionnaire indicate that the unit relies heavily on voluntary compliance. In this regard, Team MIPCU listed many difficulties, ranging from non-compliant hosting services in “rogue geographies” outside India to “members-only” piracy platforms hidden from public view.

Other limitations raised include sluggish takedown times over weekends, with some mobile apps taking up to two weeks to act. Moreover, Yadav noted that despite the ubiquity of online piracy, right holders were not registering enough FIRs with Maharashtra Cyber. “I have not seen more than a handful,” he remarked. Yadav felt that this limited the police’s ability to escalate matters.

Many right holders, however, do see the benefits of using criminal prosecutions as deterrents. In a separate interview, Anil Lale, General Counsel of Viacom 18, informed us that Viacom 18 had filed multiple complaints with Maharashtra Cyber, including the FIR in the ThopTV case (for which Lale praised the MIPCU’s “commendable action).”

Lale declined to comment on the strategies of other content media companies, but offered some suggestions as to why the number of FIRs may be low. He pointed to systemic problems with the legal system and law enforcement, the difficulty in prosecuting overseas-based pirates, and the tendency of many right holders to prioritize (understandably) the removal of pirated content over the prosecution of offenders. Lale also felt that, insofar as it is a state-level body, the MIPCU had inherently limited powers and resources. Given these drawbacks, he suggested that the establishment of a larger, national body empowered to receive and investigate complaints from across India might be more effective.

The battle against online piracy in India (and beyond) is […] weighed down by universal and local challenges.

Civil Enforcement

On the civil litigation front, the situation in India appears brighter. Many states in India have set up fast-track courts, and the Delhi High Court has recently established an Intellectual Property Division. The Delhi High Court’s approach towards online film piracy (expertly summarized by Justice Pratibha Singh of the Intellectual Property Division in a recent WIPO presentation [ PDF ] ) has been especially noteworthy. In the leading case of UTV Software Communications Ltd. v 1337X.to (2019) , the court recognized “dynamic” injunctions (to preempt pages from shifting across different URLs) and specified criteria to determine when to block “rogue websites” (i.e. websites that "primarily or predominantly share infringing content).” Pant explained that MEITY officials meet regularly among themselves and with intermediaries to implement such blocking orders. The MEITY instructs the Department of Telecommunications to inform ISPs to carry out the blocking of an IP address, which he notes can be done in “a matter of minutes.”  More recently, the Delhi High Court, in Neetu Singh v Telegram (2022), directed Telegram to disclose information about uploaders of pirated content.

However, by the time a court order is passed, and finally executed, the proliferation of pirated content may have already occurred. This shortcoming (which is not peculiar to India) is especially relevant for pirated streams of live entertainment and sports events. Legal costs, which may be prohibitively expensive for smaller outfits, present another major hurdle in the civil litigation process.

The Way Ahead

The battle against online piracy in India (and beyond) is evidently weighed down by universal and local challenges. The universal challenges range from the technological sophistication of cybercriminals to problems of international jurisdiction. The local challenges, however, chiefly encompass systemic problems with law enforcement agencies and the criminal justice system. Realistically, it is perhaps only the latter issue that the Indian government can address.

The CoP has observed that piracy is inappropriately viewed as “a low-risk high-reward” crime in India, with law enforcement agencies challenged with tackling “heinous criminal activities.” However, if the linkages between piracy and malware are better highlighted ¾ through research studies, symposiums, and police training workshops ¾ piracy should automatically rise in the pecking order of serious crimes and receive greater attention. This task could plausibly be undertaken by the Cell for IPR Promotion and Management (CIPAM), a training and awareness cell launched by the Indian government in 2016. CIPAM’s website shows that it has organized several educational workshops and involved leading Bollywood stars in an anti-piracy campaign.

Finally, many state governments may consider setting up their own IP cybercrime units. Operated in a targeted and cost-effective manner, such units would likely attract the endorsement and support of industry. In prioritizing the certainty of punishment over its severity, these units would also, no doubt, offer a service that most right holders would like to see in place.

The WIPO Magazine is intended to help broaden public understanding of intellectual property and of WIPO’s work, and is not an official document of WIPO. The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WIPO concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. This publication is not intended to reflect the views of the Member States or the WIPO Secretariat. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by WIPO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

  • Send a comment on this article
  • Back to Contents page

Infringement Cases Of Copyright In India

remedies for copyright infringement

Understand copyright infringement cases in India, examining legal proceedings, penalties, and impactful judgments that define intellectual property protection.

Table of Contents

Introduction

The fabrication of a form of intellectual property work without the authorization of the copyright holders is known as a copyright infringement cases. Copyright violation occurs when a 3rd party violates the copyright owner’s rights, like individual ownership of work for a specific period. Music and films are well-known entertainment products subject to severe copyright infringement. Violation lawsuits might result in future liabilities or funds set aside in the event of a lawsuit.

Individuals and businesses who create new compositions and apply for copyright registration , do so to guarantee that their contributions are rewarded. Other organizations may be approved to use those works through license agreements or buy them from the copyright owner; nonetheless, several factors may result in copyright violation on the part of other parties.

A high price for the permitted work or an absence of availability to a supplier of the authorised work is among the reasons.

Copyright Registration

Instances Where Copyright Infringement Occurs

copyright infringement occurs in various instances when someone uses, reproduces, or distributes copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright owner. Here are common instances:

Unauthorised Copying

Reproducing, photocopying, or duplicating copyrighted content without permission.

Illegally distributing or selling copyrighted material, such as movies, music, or software.

Presenting someone else’s work as one’s own, without proper attribution or permission.

Online Sharing

Sharing copyrighted material on online platforms without authorisation, including social media, websites, or file-sharing networks.

Adaptation or Derivative Works

Creating adaptations, remixes, or derivative works without permission from the original copyright owner.

Performing Rights Violation

Performing copyrighted works publicly without obtaining the necessary licenses or permissions.

Commercial Use without Permission

Using copyrighted material for commercial purposes without obtaining proper licensing or permission.

Digital Reproduction

Unauthorised reproduction or distribution of digital content, including e-books, software, or digital artwork.

Unauthorised Translation

Translating copyrighted works without the copyright owner’s permission.

Rebroadcasting

Broadcasting or streaming copyrighted content without proper authorisation.

Artwork Reproduction

Reproducing visual art, photographs, or illustrations without the artist’s permission.

Educational Use without Fair Use

Using copyrighted material in educational settings without qualifying for fair use or obtaining the necessary licenses.

Failure to Attribute

Not providing proper attribution or credit to the original creator when using their copyrighted work.

Using Copyrighted Software Illegally

Using software without adhering to licensing agreements, such as using unauthorised copies or distributing software without permission.

Public Display

Displaying copyrighted material in public without proper authorisation.

Architectural Works

Copying or reproducing architectural designs without permission.

Fashion Design Infringement

Copying or replicating unique and original fashion designs without permission.

Copyright Infringement Examples

Yrf vs sri sai ganesh productions.

YRF initiated a copyright infringement lawsuit against Sri Sai Ganesh Productions, alleging that their movie ‘Jabardasht’ copied essential elements from YRF’s ‘Band Baaja Baaraat.’ The court applied a test of originality, focusing on foundational aspects, substance, and kernel to determine if an average viewer would perceive one work as a copy of the other. The court found that Sri Sai Ganesh Productions had blatantly replicated YRF’s film, leading to a verdict of copyright infringement.

Hawkins Cooker Ltd. vs Magicook Appliances

Hawkins Cooker Ltd. filed a lawsuit against Magicook Appliances for unlawfully utilising their copyrighted label on the popular pressure cooker line. The court prohibited Magicook Appliances from using Hawkins Cooker Ltd’s cookbooks and mandated compensation for damages related to the alleged unauthorised use of books, products, and articles in the production of the infringing goods.

Super Cassettes Industries Limited vs YouTube and Google

Super Cassettes Industries Limited (SCIL) asserted that YouTube’s business model profits significantly from the unauthorised use of copyrighted works without approval or royalty payment. The court directed YouTube and Google to cease the distribution, reproduction, display, or transmission of any audio-visual works exclusively owned by SCIL on their platform.

Ratna Sagar (P) Ltd. V. Trisea Publications & Ors., 1996 Ptc (16) 597 

In the legal matter of Ratna Sagar (P) Ltd. versus Trisea Publications & Ors. (1996 Ptc (16) 597), the examination centred on the safeguards for copyright protection as per Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. It emphasised the necessity of safeguarding the prior publication of the work. The court deemed the party’s right to the work, based on the author’s assignment, irrelevant at this point. Consequently, the court issued an injunction to prevent copyright infringement under Sections 14 and 19 of the Act.

Star India (P) Ltd. V. Piyush Agarwal & Ors, C.S. (O.S.) No. 2722/2012, Del Hc 

Star India Pvt. Ltd. (STAR) initiated legal actions against Piyush Agarwal (Cricbuzz), Idea Cellular (IDEA), and OnMobile Global Ltd. (ONMOBILE). Despite the Board of Cricket Control in India (BCCI) being named as a common defendant, it is supporting STAR, asserting primary rights over all information from cricket events due to its role in organising and promoting cricket in India. STAR and BCCI argue that, through an agreement on 10.08.2012, BCCI exclusively assigned a set of rights, including sMobile Rights and sMobile Activation Rights, to STAR. STAR alleges a violation of these rights by the defendants and seeks an interim injunction.

Najma Heptulla V. Orient Longman Ltd., Air 1989 Del 63

This case pertains to obtaining a temporary injunction under Order 39 for the publication of books. The plaintiff asserts her status as the legal heir of Maulana Azad, the book’s author, and has initiated legal action seeking an account rendition and injunction. The primary relief is sought against Orient Longman Limited, a publishing company, and Professor Humayun Kabir, a close associate of Maulana Azad.

Eastern Book Company & Others V. D.B. Modak & Another, Air 2008 Sc 809 

Eastern Book Company, a partnership, and EBC Publishing Private Limited were involved in publishing legal books, including ‘Supreme Court Cases’ (SCC) since 1969. This compilation comprised non-reportable, reportable, and short judgments of the Supreme Court, enriched with user-friendly elements like formatting, numbering, cross-references, and additional contributions. It featured headnotes, footnotes, and long notes. In 2004, Spectrum Business Support Limited (Respondent-1) and Regent Datatech Private Limited (Respondent-2) released ‘Grand Jurix’ and ‘The Laws’ software, respectively, allegedly copying the entire SCC module onto CD-ROMs, leading to accusations of IP rights infringement by the appellants.

The Chancellor, Master and Scholars of the University Of Oxford & Ors. V. Rameshwari Photocopying Services and Anr., Cs (Os) 2439/2012 

In 2012, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press (UK), and Taylor & Francis Group (UK), along with Cambridge University Press India Pvt. Ltd. and Taylor & Francis Books India Pvt. Ltd., initiated a legal action for copyright infringement against Rameshwari Photocopy Service and the University of Delhi in the Delhi High Court. The lawsuit gained significant backing from students, professors, and activists who rallied in support of Rameshwari Services. Several petitions were submitted to join the defense, with entities like the Association of Students for Equitable Access to Knowledge (ASEAK) and the Society for Promoting Educational Access and Knowledge (SPEAK) seeking inclusion as defendants. Consequently, they were formally included as defendant number three and four in the case.

Sajeev Pillai v. VenuKunnapalli & Anr 

In this case, Sajeev Pillai, a film director and scriptwriter, researched the historical festival ‘Mamankam’ and wrote a script for a film. He signed an MoU with Kavya Film Company to produce the film. However, after two shooting schedules, he was replaced as the director. Pillai alleged that the script was altered, leading him to file a civil suit seeking various reliefs. He also filed an interim injunction application to prevent the film’s release without proper authorship credits. The District Judge denied the injunction, prompting Pillai to appeal to the Kerala High Court, which issued its order a day before the scheduled movie release.

UTV Software Communication Ltd., v.1337X.TO and Ors

In a unilateral decision, the Delhi High Court issued a groundbreaking dynamic injunction in India, allowing the injunction holder to utilise a single court order to block websites hosting infringing content, eliminating the need for separate suits for each instance of infringement. This ruling emerged from a case seeking an injunction against ‘rogue websites’ disseminating pirated versions of cinematograph films. The court found these websites culpable of hosting copyright-infringing material, denying them exemptions under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, and the safe harbour principle for intermediaries under the Information Technology Act, 2000. Additionally, the court directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeITY) and the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to consider formulating a technically feasible policy to issue warnings to viewers engaging in content infringement. Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 addresses intermediary liability and provides safe harbour exemptions.

Three Crucial Copyright Infringement Cases in India

Sarla a. saraogi & ors vs. krishna kishore singh .

The New Delhi High Court declined to impose an interlocutory order against the distribution and broadcast of cinematograph films copyright supposedly relating to SSR (Sushant Singh Rajput) because SSR’s parents failed to establish prima facie evidence, and the ratio of advantage was in favor of the respondents. ‘NYAY The Law,’ ‘Suicide or Death,’ and ‘Roughly in the middle,’ according to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, must be inducted and prohibited from being disclosed, printed, and conveyed to the world. The Complainant claimed violations of publicity and security rights and the right to due process, slander, and infringement of the Indian Constitution’s Article 21.

The Complainant struggled to create a legitimate argument for copyright infringement of SSR’s famous person or licensing because the Claimant was unaware of the subject matter of the movies, the plaintiffs were not taking SSR’s appearance, similarities, or title, and the movies had suitable provisos, the Court concluded after evaluating the facts and findings further showed. It further stated that famous rights may cease to exist after the demise of the star and that plaintiffs may use information from the official information without responsibility. Finally, the Court concluded that a libel claim is hypothetical with no access to the offensive content.

The Court further stated that no breach of the legal right to a fair trial might be considered a result of news or film coverage. It continued to say that when it comes to material that is part of the public domain, freedom of speech and expression takes precedence over Article 21. While rejecting the order, the Court requested the plaintiffs provide accounts to reimburse any losses.

Spartan Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd. Anr. Vs. Dassault System Solidworks Corporation & Anr. 

The Delhi High Court addressed the problem of software copyright infringement in this judgment. Defendant No. 1 is a French firm that created the program ‘Solidworks.’ This program makes it easier to model and build goods in a 3D setting. Defendant no.2 is a sister corporation founded by Defendant no.1 to handle all of Defendant no.1’s business in India.

Defendants No. 1 and 2 (“Defendants”) claim that the program was created as a job for pay by their workers and that the Petitioners own the copyright. The Defendants argue that the software package and its accompanying training materials are copyright literary work by the Act of 1957 (Act). Because the United States and India are both signatories of the Convention in Berne, the World Trade Organization’s Agreement, and the Universal Copyright Convention, India’s program is protected in Section 40 of the Copyright Act on trade-related. (latestphonezone.com)

Plaintiff argued that they acquired evidence in May 2018 about the Respondents’ commercial usage of copied and unlicensed part of the ‘Modelling’ software application without completing the requisite license cost. The Consumers further claimed that improper usage of the program had escalated since August 2020 and that all attempts to achieve a settlement were unsuccessful because the Defendants denied violation.

With this, the Defendants granted an order from the Court, claiming that using a counterfeit or unauthorised version of the Defendants’ computer program would constitute copyright violations under Section 51 of the Copyright Act. The Defendants also invoked Section 63B of the Act, making it illegal to intentionally use a stolen software program. Furthermore, Plaintiff contended that the Defendants’ breach of the synchronization license agreement  resulted in commercial and intellectual property violations.

“Software duplication is a serious matter that requires to be addressed in the bud,” the judge said in granting the decision. Accordingly, the Petitioners were given a close substitute ex-parte injunctive relief prohibiting the Plaintiffs from using, replicating, or disseminating any illegally downloaded, non-licensed, or unapproved software packages governed by the Complainants, and also typesetting their computer networks and trying to erase any data related to aiding others in infringing the Complainants’ copyright.

Shalini Kalra & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Limited

Muthoot Finance Limited, a non-banking economical organization, offered commercial and personal financing in this case in exchange for gold jewelry deposits. As a result, the Complainant had to keep confidential and proprietary data about its vast client form in the shape of a dataset as part of the company, which formed a “work of literature” under Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and also added up to Defendant’s proprietary information that should not be divulged to any 3rd person.

The Claimant’s former workers were Respondents Nos. 1 through 4. Each will have stated nonagreement and a delegation of loyalty when they started working for the company. The central claim in the party was that during the scope of employment, Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 4 had unpermitted and illegally copied, derived, replicated, and later transferred the sensitive data of the Complainant’s clients to Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and also the staff of Plaintiff No. 5, a company that supplies similar programs to the Claimant.

As a result, Plaintiff’s consumer base began to shift to Respondent No.5. Defendants 1 and 3 ended up joining the employment of Defendant 5 after being fired by Plaintiff. Angry, the Claimant filed the complaint with the Joint Superintendent of Police, Crime Division, New Delhi, against Defendants 1 to 5. Nevertheless, there were comparable instances of secret information being disclosed at several other Plaintiff offices, resulting in Defendant losing approx 9 cr. Rupees.

As a result, Plaintiff filed a new FIR under the relevant parts of the IPC and the IT Act at PS Special Offenses and Cyber Crime. Respondent No.5 was also accused of recruiting Plaintiff’s staff and clients using information gained unlawfully by the Respondents, according to the counterclaim.

As a result, Plaintiff filed a motion in this Court to seek a court injunction prohibiting the Plaintiff. Anyone acting on their behalf/through them from using certain sensitive information about the Plaintiff, to use any authorship or other Proprietary rights belonged to the Claimant, explicitly or implicitly trying to lure any Defendant’s clients, likely to induce any Defendant’s staff to quit jobs, or provoking any of the Defendant’s staff to The Plaintiff further demanded damages of 2,00,01,000/- from Respondents 1 to 5 jointly liable, plus interest at 18% per annum until the payment date.

The Defendants were summoned by the Court and allowed to file a prepared statement (if any). Regarding the Plaintiff’s IA, the jury issued an interim injunctive relief prohibiting the Plaintiff from divulging or using any sensitive information, classified information, or other information relating to the Lawsuit Firm’s operations, as well as from using patented technology data of any kind, including authorship and other intellectual rights of the Complainant, or from engaging in any actions or doings that will intrude the Plea.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is copyright infringement.

Copyright infringement refers to the unauthorised use, reproduction, distribution, or exploitation of copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright owner. This includes works such as literary, artistic, musical, or other creative expressions protected by copyright laws.

What are the remedies available for copyright infringement?

Remedies for copyright infringement include: Injunctions: Court orders to stop the infringing activities. Damages: Monetary compensation for the losses suffered by the copyright owner. Accounting of Profits: The infringer may be required to account for and pay any profits derived from the infringement. Seizure and Destruction: Courts may order the destruction or removal of infringing materials. Criminal Proceedings: In some cases, copyright infringement can lead to criminal charges.

What is the penalty for Copyright infringement?

The penalties for copyright infringement vary by jurisdiction but may include: Civil Penalties: Fines and damages awarded through civil lawsuits. Criminal Penalties: Criminal charges, leading to fines and imprisonment. Injunctions: Court orders to cease infringing activities. Statutory Damages: Pre-established damages defined by copyright laws. Seizure of Assets: Courts may order the confiscation of assets related to the infringement.

Other Related Articles

  • How to Avoid Copyright Infringement ?
  • Remedies for Copyright Infringement in India
  • Understanding Copyright Infringement in India

remedies for copyright infringement

Introduction The fabrication of a form of intellectual property work without the authorization of the copyright holders is known as…

Tips to Avoid Copyright Infringement

Tips to Avoid Copyright Infringement: Protect your Creatives

Overview: In today’s digital era, where information is shared, and creativity knows no bounds, it’s essential to be well-informed about…

Copyright Infringement in India - Report Copyright Infringement - Remedies for Copyright Infringement

[Civil & Criminal] Remedies for Copyright Infringement in India

Copyright Infringement Remedies  Remedies for Copyright Infringement – Copyright infringement can have serious implications. Learn about the remedies available to copyright…

Report Copyright Infringement: A Comprehensive Guide

What is Copyright Infringement? Copyright infringement refers to the unauthorized use, reproduction, or distribution of copyrighted materials. It’s essential to…

business

Understanding G-Secs and How to Invest in Them for Business?

G-secs refer to government securities or, in other words, loans or capital issued by the government. The biggest advantage associated…

How to Check First Information Report - Vakilsearch - Blog

Startups to Continue Receiving a Tax Holiday

Businesses of all sizes and types have been having a tough year courtesy of the coronavirus pandemic. The Indian government…

Mistakes to Avoid During Tax Return Filing NRI

How the Rupee Depreciation is Enticing NRIs in Real Estate?

The Indian currency has depreciated as much as 5.2% against the US dollar in 2022 so far. The rupee’s depreciation…

Subscribe to our newsletter blogs

Private Limited Company Registration Private Limited Company with Indian and Foreign Shareholders One Person Company Registration Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) Registration Partnership Firm Registration Subisdary Company Registration Subsidiary of an Indian Company in India Public Limited Company Registration Section 8 (Not-for-Profit) Company Registration Trust Registration Society Registration USA Company Incorporation Register a NBFC Company in India NIDHI Company Registration Producer Company Registration Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) Tax Deduction Account Number (TAN) Trademark Registration - India Trademark Renewal International Trademark Application Trademark Ownership Transfer Respond to a Trademark Objection File a Trademark Opposition Judgments Vakil GPT Libra Winding Up of Company roDTEP Private Company into OPC Patent Search Apply for a Provisional Patent Apply for a Patent Changes in IEC Changes in GST LUT Application ITR for LLP Business Ideas Business Loans NGO Registration Change the Objectives of Your Company Sole Proprietorship Scope of Work and Deliverables Agreement Service Level Agreement Business Compliance PIL Web Ecommerce Development Hallmark Registration Caveat Petition OSP License GDPR APEDA Registration Money Recovery Vendor Termination RBI Compounding Application Patent Infringement Labour Law Non Compete Agreement Relinquishment Deed Spice Board Registration Convert Private to Public Limited Company Posh Compliance Trademark Assignment Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Company Name Search Corporate tax e-FIR Property Documents Verification Trademark Infringement Well Known Trademarks Copyright Infringement Intellectual Property Employment Agreement Income tax Notice Financial Agreement Trademark Search NRI Legal Services Professional Tax for Employees Professional Tax for Directors ESI Registration PF Registration ESI Filing PF Filing Cancellation of GST Professional Tax Registration DIPP Certification Basic Food License State Food License Central Food License Fundraising PF and ESI Filings PF and ESI Registration Professional Tax Filing Shops and Establishment Act Registration Importer Exporter Code Registration SSI / MSME Registration Trade License Registration Copyright Registration Change in trademark application Trademark Withdrawal Payroll Services Goods & Service Tax (GST) Registration Trademark Watch ISO Registration Hearing Labour Welfare Fund Registration USA Company Compliances NGO Compliance Non-Disclosure Agreement Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) Get Advice from a Lawyer Get a Detailed Legal Opinion from an Expert Commercial Rental / Lease Agreement Leave and License Agreement Prepare a Power of Attorney Agreement Review Shareholders' Agreement Term Sheet Review a Term Sheet given by an Investor Share Purchase Agreement Terms of Service and Privacy Policy Terms of Service Privacy Policy Get Basic Legal Advice Get Basic Legal Opinion Get an Advanced Legal Opinion Get Expert Legal Opinion Legal Agreement Legal Notice Disclaimer Draft a Consumer Complaint Founders Agreement Franchise Agreement Vendor Agreement Master Service Agreement Joint Venture Agreement Freelancer Agreement Consultancy Agreement Profit Sharing Agreement Cheque Bounce Notice Freelancer / Contractor's Agreement Loan Agreement Terms of Service and Privacy Policy Website Terms of Service and Privacy Policy App Terms of Service and Privacy Policy - Web & App Probate of Will Divorce Consultation Property Registration Property Consultancy - opinion Management of a Trust Management of a Society Dissolution of Partnership Firm Accounting and Book Keeping GST Filings TDS Filings File Annual Returns for your Private Limited Company Get help from a Company Secretary for your Private Limited Company Get help from a Company Secretary for your Limited Liability Partnership Change your Company Name Change the Objectives of Your Company Appointment of a Director Removal/Resignation of a Director Change the Official Address of Private Company Close your Private Limited Company Convert your Partnership into a Private Limited company Convert your Sole Proprietorship into a Private Limited Company Convert your Private Limited Company into an LLP Convert your Private Limited Company into a Public Limited Company Income tax returns - Propreitorship Firm Financial Projections for Bank Loan Investor Pitch Deck CA/CS certification Increase in Authorized Capital of your Company Change the Objectives of Your LLP Change your LLP Name Adding a Designated Partner Change the Official Address of Your LLP Increase in Contribution to your LLP Change LLP Agreement Close your Limited Liability Partnership Convert your Sole Proprietorship into an LLP Compliance - Section 8 Close down your Not-for-Profit (Section 8) Company Get Share Certificates for your Company Replacement of a Director Change in the Designation of Director Adding a Partner in LLP Replacement of Designated Partner Resignation of Designated Partner Resignation of Partner Change Name of your LLP Close your Partnership firm Close your Proprietorship firm Close your Public Limited Company Convert your LLP into a Private Limited Company Convert your Partnership into an LLP Convert your Sole Proprietorship into a Partnership Audit your Company Valuation of Business Convert your Private Limited Company into an One Person Company Transfer of Shares Change in Authorized Capital of your Company Employee Stock Options (ESOP) Issue of New Shares (To existing promoters) RBI & SECRETARIAL COMPLIANCES FOR FOREIGN INVESTMENT ISSUE OF NEW SHARES IN YOUR COMPANY (TO OTHER THAN EXISTING PROMOTERS) Employment Agreement with ESOP Due Diligence of Company Convert your One Person Company into a Private Limited Company DIR-3 KYC Filing Issue of Convertible Debentures (CCD) Permanent Account Number (PAN) Religion change Gender Change Apply for Name Change - Minor Name Change Application FSSAI Marriage Certificate Mutual Divorce Court Marriage Public Notice - Gazette Notification Make a Will Residential Rental Agreement Gift Deed File your Income Tax Returns - Salaried Individual Logo design Free GST Registration Internal Start a Branch Office in India Get a Section 80 G Tax Exemption Trademark Search ISI Registration Apply for Birth Certificate Employment Contract without ESOP Sale Deed CA Advisory Service Apply for Succession Certificate Legal notice for recovery of dues Apply for legal heir certificate Apply for Psara License RERA complaints Main Service Startup India Registration Integrated Accounting + GST Talk to a CA Talk to a Lawyer Talk to a CS FCRA Registration FCRA Renewal Change in Member or Nominee of OPC Change in Particulars of Director Creation or Modification of Charge Satisfaction of Charge Conversion of Dormant Company to Active Company Conversion of Loan into Equity Shares Change the Official Address of Your Business (from one state to another state ) Get Support on Opening Current Bank Account Design registration Legal Metrology NGO Deed Drafting File an Opposition for Brand Infringement Darpan Registration Cessation of Partner or Designated Partner SEBI IA Registration Surrender of DIN/DPIN Foreign Liabilities and Assets (FLA) Return Change the Official Address of Your LLP (From One State to Another State) Change the Official Address of Your Company (Outside the City) CSR-1 Registration Service

Bengaluru - Bangalore Chennai Cochin Coimbatore Delhi Gurugram - Gurgaon Hyderabad Kolkata Mumbai Noida Thiruvananthapuram Vijayawada Visakhapatnam Addanki Adilabad Agartala Agra Ahmedabad Aizawl Ajmer Akola Alappuzha Aligarh Allahabad Alwar Amaravati Ambala Amritsar Anand Anantapur Andaman Aurangabad Aurangabad-Bihar Azamgarh Badaun Badlapur Bagaha Bagalkot Bahadurgarh Baltora Baraut Bardhaman Bareilly Bathinda Begusarai Belgaum Bellary Berhampur Bhadrak Bhadreswar Bhagalpur Bharuch Bhavnagar Bhayandar Bhilai Bhilwara Bhiwandi Bhiwani Bhopal Bhubaneswar Bidar Bijapur Bikaner Bilaspur Bina Etawa Birati Birbhum Bishalgarh Botlagudur Budaun Budgam Buldhana Bundi Cachar Calicut Chandauli Chandigarh Chandigarh-Punjab Chhapur Chhatarpur Chhindwara chidambaram Chitradurga Chittoor Chittorgarh Churu Cooch Behar Cuddalore Cuttack Dahod Daman Darbhanga Dehradun Deoghar Dera Bassi Dewas Dhaka Dhanbad Darbhanga Dharmapuri Dharmanagar Dharwad Dhule Dimapur Dindigul Dispur Dombivli Dumarkunda Dungri Durgapur Dwarka Eluru Erode Faridabad Firozabad Firozpur Gandhidham Gandhinagar Gangtok Ganjam Gannavaram Ghaziabad Gonda Gorakhpur Greater Noida Gulbarga Guntur Gunupur Guwahati Gwalior Haldwani Hansi Hanumangarh Haridwar Hisar Hoshiarpur Hosur Howrah Hubli Idukki Imphal Indore Itanagar Jabalpur Jagdalpur Jaipur Jalandhar Jalgaon Jalgaon Jamod Jamalpur Jammu Jamnagar Jamshedpur Jamui Jaunpur Jhansi Jind Jodhpur Jorhat Kadapa Kakinada Kalahandi Kalimpong Kalyan Kangra Kankroli Kannur Kanpur Kanyakumari Kapurthala Karad Karaikal Karaikudi Karimnagar Karjat Karnal Karur kasganj Kashipur Katihar Katni Kavaratti Khamgaon Khammam Kharagpur Khordha Kochi Kohima Kolhapur Kollam Koppal Kota Kottayam Kozhikode Krishnagiri Kullu Kumbakonam Kurnool Kurukshetra Lalitpur Latur Loharu Lucknow Ludhiana Madhubani Madikeri Madurai Mainpuri Malappuram Malda Mandi Mandsaur Mangalore Mapusa Margao Marthandam Mathura Meerut Midnapore Mirzapur Mohali Mone Moradabad Morbi Morena Muktsar Mundra Muzaffarnagar Muzaffarpur Mysore Nabarangpur Nadiad Nagapattinam Nagaur Nagercoil Nagpur Nainital Nalanda Namakkal Nanded Nandigama Nashik Navi Mumbai Navsari Nellore Nilgiris Nizamabad Ongole Ooty Other Cities Palakkad Palampur Palgadh Pali Panaji Panchkula Panipat Paradip Pathanamthitta Pathankot Patiala Patna Pilani Port Blair Pratapgarh Puducherry Pune Raichur Raigarh Raipur Rajahmundry Rajapalayam Rajkot Ramanathapuram Ramgarh Ranchi Raniganj Ratlam Rewa Rohtak Roorkee Rourkela Rupnagar Saharanpur Salem Sangli Sangrur Satara Secunderabad Shillong Shimla Shimoga shirdi Sikar Siliguri Silvassa Singrauli Sirmaur Sirmur Sitamarhi Sitapur Sivaganga Sivakasi Siwan Solan Solapur Sonipat sonla Sri Ganganagar Srinagar Surat Talbehat Tezpur Thalassery Thane Thanjavur Theni Thoothukudi Thrissur Tiruchirappalli Tirunelveli Tirupati Tirupur Tiruvannamalai Tumkur Udaipur Udupi Ujjain Una Uppala Uttarpara Vadodara Vapi Varanasi Vasai Vellore Vidisha Vill Damla Viluppuram Vinukonda Virar Virudhunagar Warangal Washim Yamuna Nagar Yelahanka Zirakpur Select City*

Email Enter valid email addres

You'll be redirected to payment page to reserve a callback from our expert

Legal Bites

5 Leading Cases of Intellectual Property Rights

In this article, the author has discussed 5 leading case laws under patent law, copyright law, and trademarks law..

5 Leading Cases of Intellectual Property Rights

5 Leading Cases of Intellectual Property Rights | Overview

  • Bayer Corporation v. Union of India
  • Diamond v. Chakrabarty
  • Yahoo! Inc. vs. Akash Arora & Anr
  • The Coca-Cola Company v. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd. and Ors
  • D.C. Comics v. Towle

Introduction

Intellectual Property Rights has proved itself to be invaluable in all senses in the socio-economic fields in the world. It has gained immense popularity in the recent past. It is what motivates people to create and innovate. Things which are governed by Intellectual property laws are creations of the mind. In this article, the author has have discussed 5 leading case laws under Patent Law, Copyright Law, and Trademarks Law.

1. Bayer Corporation v. Union of India [1]

This landmark judgment is the first-ever case in India dealing with the granting of a compulsory license under an application made under Section 84 of the Patents Act, 1970.

The petitioner, Bayer Corporation Ltd incorporated in the USA invented and developed a drug named ‘Nexavar (Sorafenib Tosylate)’ used in the treatment of persons suffering from Kidney Cancer (RCC). The drug was granted an international patent in 45 countries including India. Under normal circumstances, a third party can manufacture and sell the patented drug only with the permission or license granted by the patent holder.

Natco, a drug manufacturer had approached Bayer for a grant of a voluntary license to manufacture and sell the drug at a much lower price of Rs. 10,000/- per month of therapy as against the price of Rs. 2, 80,428/- per month of therapy charged by the petitioner.

The request was denied and hence they made an application to the Controller under section 84 of the Act for a compulsory license on the ground that the petitioner had not met the reasonable requirement of the public in respect of the patented drug. It was granted on the condition that the applicant had to sell the drug at Rs 8,800/- per month and was directed to pay 6% of the total sale as royalty to the petitioner. [2] Natco was also directed to sell the drug only in India and to make the drug available to at least 600 needy patients each year free of charge.

Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner approached the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) contending that the order passed was contrary to the provisions of the Act since the drug was made available at a lower price by Cipla. The board, however, rejected the contention by holding that the drug was not made available at a cheaper price by the petitioner and that the petitioner’s stance was detrimental to the public at large who are in need of the drug. Hence, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the High Court. [3]

Issues Involved

The major issues for consideration by the High Court were:

  • Has the requirements under Section 84(1) been satisfied for granting a compulsory license?
  • Whether supplies by infringers of a patented drug to be considered/taken into account to determine the satisfaction of reasonable requirement test?

With regard to Issue No.1, the Court held that all the three requirements under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 84(1) for granting compulsory license has been satisfied in this case.

The court opined that the question of whether the reasonable requirement of the public has been satisfied under Section 84(1) (a) is to be determined after examining the evidence produced by both parties.

In the present case, after examining the figures given by the Petitioner in affidavits it is clear that the requirements haven’t been met by the petitioner. It was held that the dual pricing system under the Patient Assistance Programme would not satisfy the conditions of Section 84(1) (b) and hence the drug was not considered to be available at a reasonable price to the public. [4]

On the question of whether the patented drug has been worked in the territory of India, the Court held that when a patent holder is faced with an application for a Compulsory License , it is for a patent holder to show that, the patented invention/drug is worked in the territory of India by the manufacturer or otherwise. It is not compulsory that “ Worked in India ” should include “ manufacture ” if the patent holder can furnish valid reasons before the authorities for not manufacturing in India keeping Section 83 of the Act in mind.

  • On Issue No. 2, the Court answered the question negatively and held that the supply by the infringers, Cipla and Natco could not be taken into account since their supply could stop any day. It is only when the patent holder grants a de facto license could infringer’s supplies be taken into account. The obligation to meet a reasonable requirement of the public is of a patent holder alone either by itself or through its licensees.
  • Section 84(7) of the Act, provides a deeming fiction which provides that the reasonable requirement of the public is not satisfied, if the demand for a patented article is not met to an adequate extent in which regard the patent holder has failed in the present case.

The decision, in this case, will go a long way to ensure that the interests of the public are drowned by reason of the personal interests of the patent holder in necessary circumstances.

2. Diamond v. Chakrabarty [5]

This was the historical decision in which the US Supreme Court considered the patentability of a living micro-organism. The decision is one which will have a huge impact in the field of Biotechnology.

Ananda Chakrabarty, a microbiologist filed patent claims for human-made, genetically engineered bacterium that was capable of breaking down multiple components of crude oil. A patent examiner rejected the patent because it was outside of the scope of the patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 .

The Patent Office Board of Appeals affirmed and ruled that living things are not patentable subject matter under Section 101. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals reversed this decision holding that the fact that micro-organisms are alive is insignificant for the purpose of patent law. [6] Diamond, the Commissioner of Patents, petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari against the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Issue Involved

The main issue before the Court was whether the respondent’s micro-organism plainly qualifies as patentable subject matter.

Arguments Raised by the Appellant

Diamond raised the argument that with the enactment of the Plant Patent Act, 1930 and Plant Variety Protection Act, 1970 Congress implicitly understood that living organisms were not within the scope of 35 U.S.C. §101. He also relied upon the judgment in Parker v. Flook [7] wherein it was held that courts should show restraint before expanding protection under 35 U.S.C. §101 into new, unforeseen areas. [8]

Section 101 of Title 35 U.S.C. provides for the issuance of a patent to a person who invents or discovers “any” new and useful “manufacture” or “composition of matter.” The court held that a live, human-made micro-organism is a patentable subject matter under Section 101 and that the respondent’s microorganism constituted a “manufacture” or “composition of matter under the statute. The court opined that the organism was a product of human ingenuity “having a distinctive name, character, and use”. [9]

Moreover, the Court rejected the appellant’s argument by holding that the patent protection afforded under the Plant Patent Act, 1930 and Plant Variety Protection Act, 1970 was not evidence of Congress’ intention to exclude living things from being patented. The court pointed out that genetic technology was not foreseen by Congress do not make it non-patentable unless expressly provided. The Court held that the language of the Act was wide enough to embrace the respondent’s invention. [10]

3 . Yahoo ! Inc. vs. Akash Arora & Anr [11]

This landmark judgment is the first case relating to cybersquatting in India. Cybersquatting has been defined as the registration, trafficking in, or use of a domain name that is either identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive trademark or is confusingly similar to or dilutive of a famous trademark. [12]

The plaintiff is a global internet media who is the owner of the trademark ‘Yahoo!’ and the domain name ‘Yahoo.Com’ , which are very well-known and render services under its domain name. While the application of the plaintiff for registration of the trademark was pending in India, the defendant Akash Arora started providing similar services under the name ‘Yahoo India’ .

The present case is brought out by the plaintiff for passing off the services and goods of the defendants as that of the plaintiff by using a name which is identical to or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademark ‘Yahoo! ‘ and prayed for a permanent injunction to prevent the defendant from continuing to use the name.

  • Whether an action for passing off could be maintained against services rendered?
  • Whether a domain name is protected under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, of 1958?
  • Whether the use of a disclaimer by the defendant will eliminate the problem?

The Delhi High Court extensively examined the issues and rejected the defendant’s contention that an action for passing off could only be brought against goods and not services rendered by virtue of Section 2(5), Sections 27, 29 and Section 30 of the Act. It was held that the passing off action could be maintained against the service, as the service rendered could be recognized for the action of passing off.

The law relating to passing off is well-settled and clear. The principle behind the same is that no man can carry on his business in a way that can lead to believing that he is carrying on the business of another man or has some connection with another man for the business. [14] The plaintiff is entitled to relief under Section 27(2) and Section 106 of the Act which is governed by principles of Common law.

The Court relied upon the landmark judgment of Monetary Overseas v. Montari Industries Ltd. and reiterated that “When a defendant does business under a name which is sufficiently close to the name under which the plaintiff is trading and that name has acquired a reputation and the public at large is likely to be misled that the defendant’s business is the business of the plaintiff, or is a branch or department of the plaintiff, the defendant is liable for an action in passing off.” [15]

  • With regard to Issue No. 2, the Hon’ble Court relied on the US case Card Service International Inc. vs. McGee [16] , and held that the domain name serves the same function as a trademark and is hence entitled to the same protection.
  • While discussing the impact of the disclaimer issued by the defendant, the Court held that it would not eliminate the problem because of the nature of Internet use. [17] The users might not be sophisticated enough to understand the slight difference in the domain name to distinguish between the two.

The Court addressed each of these issues and came to the conclusion that Yahoo Inc. had a good reputation in the market and that the name adopted by the defendants were deceptive and misleading causing damage to the reputation of the plaintiff and undue gain for the defendants. In consequence, the court granted an injunction in favour of the plaintiff under Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39 of CPC, 1908.

4. The Coca-Cola Company v. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. [18]

This case is better known as the " MAAZA War case ". This was decided by the Delhi Court.

The plaintiff (Coca-Cola) is the largest brand of soft drinks operating in 200 countries whereas Defendant No1 earlier known as Acqua Minerals Pvt. Ltd. used to be a part of the Parle Group of Industries. The owners of Bisleri had sold the trademarks, formulation rights, know-how, intellectual property rights, and goodwill etc. of their product MAAZA amongst others to the plaintiff by a master agreement.

In March 2008, when the plaintiff filed for registration of the MAAZA trademark in Turkey, the defendant sent a legal notice repudiating the Licensing Agreement thereby ceasing the plaintiff from manufacturing MAAZA and using its trademarks etc. directly or indirectly, by itself or through its affiliates. In consequence, the plaintiff claimed permanent injunction and damages for infringement of trademark and passing off. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant had unauthorisedly permitted the manufacture of certain ingredients of the beverage bases of MAAZA to be manufactured by a third party in India. [19]

  • Does the Delhi High Court have jurisdiction in the present case?
  • Is there any infringement of the trademark or passing off?
  • Is the plaintiff entitled to get a permanent injunction?

It was held that the Court had jurisdiction to decide the case if a threat of infringement exists. It was pointed out that an intention to use the trademark besides direct or indirect use of the trademark was sufficient to give jurisdiction to the court to decide on the issue. [20]

The court held that it is a well-settled position of law that exporting products from a country is to be considered as a sale within the country wherefrom the goods are exported and it amounts to infringement of the trademark.

The Court granted an interim injunction against the defendant from using the mark in India as well as in the export market to prevent the plaintiff from irreparable loss and injury and quashed the appeal by the defendant. [21]

5. D.C. Comics v. Towle [22]

This very interesting case is a recent landmark judgment in the field of copyright law.

Facts of the Case

DC Comics (DC) is the publisher and copyright owner of comic books featuring the story of the world-famous character, Batman. Originally introduced in the Batman comic books in 1941, the Batmobile is a fictional, high-tech automobile that Batman employs as his primary mode of transportation. The Batmobile has varied in appearance over the years, but its name and key characteristics as Batman’s personal crime-fighting vehicle have remained consistent.

Since its creation in the comic books, the Batmobile has also been depicted in numerous television programs and motion pictures. Two of these depictions are relevant to this case: the 1966 television series Batman, starring Adam West, and the 1989 motion picture Batman, starring Michael Keaton.

Defendant Mark Towle produces replicas of the Batmobile as it appeared in both the 1966 television show and 1989 motion picture as part of his business at Gotham Garage, where he manufactures and sells replicas of automobiles featured in motion pictures or television programs for approximately “avid car collectors” who “know the entire history of the Batmobile .” Towle also sells kits that allow customers to modify their cars to look like the Batmobile , as it appeared in the 1966 television show and the 1989 motion picture.

DC filed this action against Towle, alleging, among other things, causes of action for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition arising from Towle’s manufacture and sale of the Batmobile replicas. The district court passed a summary judgment in favour of DC.

Summary of Judgment

The main question for consideration is whether BATMOBILE is entitled to copyright protection. The Court of Appeal relied on a number of historical decisions in deciding this case. The court held that copyright protection extends not only to the original work as a whole but also to “sufficiently distinctive” elements, like comic book characters, contained within the work. [23]

Although comic book characters are not listed in the Copyright Act, courts have long held that, as distinguished from purely “literary” characters, comic book characters, which have “physical as well as conceptual qualities”, are copyrightable. [24] The court relied on the judgment in Hachiki’s case [25] where it was held that automotive character can be copyrightable. Moreover, it has been held that copyright protection can apply for a character even if the character’s appearance changes over time. [26]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in this case, developed a three-part test for determining protection of a character appearing in comic books, television programs or films under the 1976 Copyright Act, independent of any specific work in which it has appeared and irrespective of whether it “lacks sentient attributes and does not speak” as explained above. [27]

The court held that the present case satisfied the three-part test DC had the right to bring suit because it had reserved all merchandising rights when it granted licenses for the creation of the 1966 Batman television series and the 1989 Batman film.

It was held that the 1966 program and 1989 film were derivative works of the original Batman comics and that any infringement of those derivative works also gave rise to a claim for DC, the copyright owner of the underlying works.

It was found that Towle’s replicas infringed upon DC’s rights hence the Court also upheld the District Court’s refusal to allow Towle to assert a laches defense on DC’s trademark claims because the infringement was found to be willful. [28]

The law relating to intellectual property is constantly evolving all around the world. Being a relatively new concept, there are many areas which still need development and protection of the laws. All the above-mentioned case laws have a wide impact on society. They have brought about major breakthroughs in IP law.

Originally Published: May 26, 2019

[1] AIR 2014 Bom 178

[2] www.manupatra.com

[3] LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS IN PATENT LAW, Available at http://www.talwaradvocates.com/landmark-judgements-patent-law/

[4] BAYER CORP. V. UNION OF INDIA, Available at http://www.indialaw.in/blog/blog/intellectual-property-rights/bayer-corp-v-union-of-india/

[5] 447 U.S. 303, 100 S. Ct. 2204 (1980)

[6] DIAMOND v. CHAKRABARTY (1980), Available at https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/447/303.html

[7] 437 U.S. 584 (1978)

[8] Diamond v. Chakrabarty, Available at https://www.quimbee.com/cases/diamond-v-chakrabarty

[9] Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U.S. 609, 615

[10] https://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/resources/p/casebrief-diamond-v-chakrabarty.aspx

[11] 1999(19) PTC 201 (Del)

[12] Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1125(d))

[13] Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

[14] MANU/DE/0120/1999

[15] 1996 PTC 142

[16] 42 USPQ 2d 1850

[17] Jesus Vs. Brodsky, 46 USPQ 2d 1652

[18] MANU/DE/2698/2009

[19] www.lexquest.com

[20] Case analysis: Coca-Cola Co. Vs. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd, Available at https://brandsandfakes.com/case-analysis-coca-cola-co-vs-bisleri-international-pvt-ltd/135/

[21] LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS IN TRADEMARKS LAW, Available at http://www.talwaradvocates.com/5-landmark-judgements-trademarks-law/

[22] MANU/FENT/2518/2015

[23] Halicki Films, LLC v. Sanderson Sales & Mktg, 547 F.3d 1213, 1224 (9th Cir. 2008)

[24] Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates, 581 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1978).

[25] Halicki Films, LLC v Sanderson Sales & Marketing, 547 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2008).

[26] Toho Co., Ltd. v. William Morrow & Co., Inc., 33 F.Supp.2d 1206 (C.D. Cal. 1998)

[27] http://www.frosszelnick.com/dc-comics-v-towle

  • Five Landmark Decisions in Indian Tort Law – by Tanishka Goswami (Opens in a new browser tab)
  • Intellectual Property Rights

Fathima Mehendi

Fathima Mehendi

5th Year law student at National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Kochi

Related News

case study on copyright in india

  • MyLawman Team
  • Our Partners
  • Testimonials
  • Int Session Testimonials

MyLawman.co.in

  • Submt your Post Through Email
  • Our Journal
  • Opportunities
  • _Call for Papers
  • _Legal Jobs
  • _Internships
  • _Certificate Courses
  • _Fellowships
  • _Scholarships
  • _Conferences & Seminars
  • _Publication Opportunities
  • _Online Opportunities
  • _Moot Court Comp's
  • _Quiz Competitons
  • _Legal Competitions
  • _Summer Schools
  • _Call for Blogs
  • _Legal Article
  • _Case Briefs
  • _Legal Resources
  • _Know Your Rights Series
  • _Know Your Law Series
  • _Expert Corner Series
  • _Guest Posts
  • _Company Law
  • _Constitutional Law
  • _Consumer Protection Law
  • _Criminal Law
  • _Criminology
  • _Competition Law
  • _Family Law
  • _Indian Contract Act
  • _Jurisprudence
  • _Labour Law
  • _Legal Research & Methodology
  • _Muslim Law
  • _International Trade Law
  • _Legal Updates
  • _Exam Updates
  • _E- Library

MyLawman Events

  • _Courses & Events
  • _Interactive Sessions
  • MyLawman Publications
  • Submit Post
  • _Advisory Board
  • _Our Core Team
  • _Our Partners
  • _Our Supporters
  • Career @ MyLawman

Follow us on Social Media!

[law notes] indian copyrights act, 1957 with case laws| ipr by anubha mathur.

case study on copyright in india

  INTRODUCTION 

Copyright is a bundle of exclusive rights given by the law to the creators of original works. It is a form of intellectual property protection granted by law. The rights provided under Copyright law include the rights of reproduction of the work, communication of the work to the public, adaptation of the work and translation of the work.

Copyright laws serve to create property rights for certain kinds of intellectual property, generally called works of authorship. Copyright laws protect the legal rights of the creator of an ‘original work’ by preventing others from reproducing the work in any other way.

The main goals of copyright are: -

  • To encourage the development of culture, science and innovation
  • To provide a financial benefit to copyright holders for their works
  • To facilitate access to knowledge and entertainment for the public.

Copyright provides a framework for relationships between the different players in the content industries, as well as for relationships between rights holders and the consumers of content. Copyright is a form of Intellectual Property, along with trademarks and patents in all countries, and other creations (such as trade secrets, database rights, rights of publicity and the like) that may vary from country to country.

BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO RELATED INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

Indian copyright law is at parity with the international standards as contained in TRIPS. The (Indian) Copyright Act, 1957, pursuant to the amendments in 1999, 2002, and 2012, fully reflects the Berne Convention for Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 1886, and the Universal Copyrights Convention, to which India is a party. India is also a party to the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Rights of Producers of Phonograms and is an active member of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

International copyright treaties

Several international treaties encourage reasonably coherent protection of copyright from country to country. They set minimum standards of protection which each signatory country then implements within the bounds of its own copyright law.

Berne Convention, 1886

Berne convention was the first and oldest multilateral convention on copyright that was for the protection of literary and artistic work which was adopted in 1886.

Initially, 10 nations were part of this convention and today 152 nations out of 190 are part of it. This convention made a union for the protection of the rights of the authors in their literary and artistic work.

The Berne Convention provides that, at a minimum, copyright protection in all signatory countries should extend to “literary and artistic works”, including “every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression.”

The Berne Convention contributed some major concerns to the copyright laws: -

The work originating in one signatory nation of the Berne Convention to be protected in the same manner in other nations too.

The automatic protection was granted to the author’s work and was not subjected to any registration deposition fees or any formal notice in connection with the publication. This means that the copyright exists as soon as the work is “FIXED” i.e. recorded in any form.

If any dispute arises in the nation of origin, then the dispute can be filed in either of both nations.

It described the types of works protected, duration of protection, scope of exceptions and Limitations of copyright.

Principles such as  “national treatment”  (works originating in one signatory country are given the same protection in the other signatory countries as each grants to works of its own nationals)

Principles such as “ automatic protection ” (copyright inheres automatically in a qualifying work upon its fixation in a tangible medium and without any required prior formality).

WIPO Copyright Treaty

The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) is a special agreement under the Berne Convention that deals with the protection of works and the rights of their authors in the digital environment. In addition to the rights recognized by the Berne Convention, they are granted certain economic rights.  The Treaty also deals with two subject matters to be protected by copyright: 

Computer programs, whatever the mode or form of their expression; and

Compilations of data or other material ("databases"). 

The treaty was signed in 1996 and also recognizes that the transmission of works over the Internet and similar networks is an exclusive right within the scope of copyright, originally held by the creator.

It categorizes as copyright infringement both: -

  • The circumvention of technological protection measures attached to works
  • The removal from a work of embedded rights management information.

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)

The Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) is comprehensive in giving cover to all areas of technology, property, patents, trademarks, copyrights and so on.

The TRIPs encourages upon the member country’s sovereign right to frame its own legislation on intellectual property matters. This clause has been included on account of persistent demand from developed and industrialized countries.

The TRIPs Agreement covers seven categories of intellectual property rights:

  • Geographical Indications
  • Industrial Designs
  • Integrated Circuits
  • Trade Secrets

It was signed in 1996 and administered by the world trade organization. This agreement includes a number of provisions related to the enforcement of Intellectual Property rights. It says that  national laws have to make the effective enforcement of Intellectual Property rights possible , and describes in detail how enforcement should be addressed.

INDIAN COPYRIGHTS ACT, 1957

Copyright law protects expressions of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. It protects original works of ownership. It gives an exclusive right to do or authorize others to do certain acts in relation to literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, cinematography, and sound recordings. Computer programs are also included in literary works. Authors of Computer programs, and broadcasting organizations are to be given the right to authorize or prohibit the commercial rental of their works to the public. These similar exclusive rights also apply to the films.  

The Copyright Act, 1957, along with the Copyright Rules, 1958 , is the governing law for copyright protection in India. After independence, the Indian Copyright Act was the first law which was enacted from the provisions of the Berne Convention.

Objectives:

The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 is enacted with the following two main objectives:

Encouragement to the Original Work:

The main objective of the Copyright Act is to encourage authors, composers, artists, and designers to create original works by rewarding them with the exclusive right for a limited period (usually for the life of the originator plus 50 years) to exploit the work for monetary gain.

The economic exploitation is done by licensing such exclusive rights to the entrepreneurs like publishers, film producers and record manufacturers for monetary consideration. In reality, people who economically exploit the copyright are the greater beneficiaries of the copyright law than the creators of works of copyright. The publishers and authors of books are such examples.

Protection to the Originator:

The objective of copyright law is also, in essence, to protect the author or the creator of the original work from the unauthorized reproduction or exploitation of his/her materials. The right also extends to prevent others from exercising without authority any other form of right attached to copyright, for example, in the case of literary work, the right of translation, adaptation or abridgment.

In recent times, with the rapid advance of technology, copyright infringement in the form of ‘piracy’ has become a serious problem of an international character. This is because technological progress has made the reproduction of copyrighted material easy and cheap.

Accordingly, Indian copyright owners can protect their copyright in almost any country in the world. The appropriate actions taken under the Copyright Act 1957 can stop the infringement of copyright. Infringement of copyright is also an offense punishable with imprisonment and fine.

DEVELOPMENT OF COPYRIGHT LAWS IN INDIA

 The Indian Copyright law was developed in 3 phases:

Early Phase: - In 1911, the earliest statutory law on copyright was made under the administration of British rule. The provisions of the Berne convention were followed. During that phase, the term of copyright was for the lifetime of the author plus 7 years after his death and the government could grant a compulsory license to publish a book. The registration was also made necessary in 1914.

Modern Phase: - Copyright Act of 1911 was again amended in 1914 and it was also called modern copyright legislation. For the very first time criminal sanction was introduced in act for infringement of copyright. The term of the copyright was fixed for 10 years from the date of its first publication. This act remained applicable until replaced by Copyright Act, 1957.

1957 Phase: - The Act was enacted after the independence of the nation from British rule. It was the first enactment of intellectual property laws. It came into force on 21 st January 1958. Major provisions of act were adopted by the Berne convention of protection of literary and artistic work, 1886.

This act is amended 6 times till now to align with rapid changes in society and provisions of international treaties i.e. Berne Convention, UCC, TRIPs Agreement.

SUBJECT MATTER OF COPYRIGHT, ECONOMICS AND MORAL RIGHTS 

Modern copyright laws serve to protect a variety of intellectual property ranging from songs and jingles to computer software and proprietary databases. All subject matters protected by copyright are called ‘works’. Thus according to  Section 13  of The Copyright Act 1957, it may be subjected to the following works: 

Clause (a) of this Section 13 provides the definition of original work whereas clause (b) and (c) provides secondary works. 

Primary Works

Original Literary Work, 

Original Dramatic work, 

Original Musical work, 

Original Artistic Work, 

Secondary Works

Cinematography films, and 

Sound recordings.

Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides an inclusive definition of word literary works according to which the literary work includes computer programming, tablets, and compilations including computer database. These cover published works including books, articles, journals, and periodicals, as well as manuscripts. Even adaptations, translations, and abridgements are taken as original works and are protected under copyright law. Section 13(a) classify literary works in the primary work.

Case: Zee Telefilms v. Sundial Communications

Facts: A had prepared concept notes for the purpose of television film which consists of characters, plots, notes and sketches etc.

Issues: Whether A is entitled to the copyright of those concept notes?

Held: Yes, since A invests labour and skill in preparing the concept paper. Such a person is entitled to copyright.

Case: Macmillan & Co. v. K.J Cooper

Facts: Plaintiff’s book consisted of selected passages from Plutarch’s life of Alexander the Great, joined together by a few words to give a different appearance. The book also contained an introduction and notes useful for education. A similar book was published by the defendants with notes. The original work contained 40,000 words while the defendants had copied 20,000 words and 7000 words in notes.

Issue: Whether the defendants work infringed the copyright in the plaintiff’s works?

Held: Defendants work infringed the copyright

Original Dramatic Works:

According to section 2(h) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the dramatic work includes any piece for recitation, choreographic work or entertainment in dumb shows, the scenic arrangement or acting form which is fixed in writing or otherwise but does not include a cinematographic film. Since the definition is an inclusive one, the other things fall within the general meaning of dramatic work, and may also be covered by the definition.

Case: Academy of General Education Manipal v. Malini Mallya

The court shows a clear difference between literary and dramatic work. The difference between the two rests on the fact that literary work allows itself to be read while a dramatic work “forms the text upon which the performance of the plays rests.” A dance performance will not be covered under copyright work but under dramatic work.

Case: Creation Records v. New Group Newspaper

Held: It was held that a photograph that involves no movement or action cannot be treated as dramatic work. Copyright of Dramatic work can in form of:

Adaption of Dramatic work:- Adaptation work means the modification of that work in some other form.

Original Musical Works:

According to section 2(p) of the Copyright Act, 1957, musical work means any work consisting of music and includes any graphical notion of such work, but does not include any words or any action intended to be sung, spoken or performed with the music. The words in a song and the music have separate rights and the rights cannot be merged. In order to qualify for copyright protection, a musical work must be original. 

Example:- Famous song “Yaaram” which is written by Gulzar and composed by Vishal Bharadwaj. The copyright of the lyrics will belong to Gulzar and the musical composition will be of the composer Vishal Bharadwaj.

Original Artistic Works:

According to the section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the artistic work includes any painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving photograph of any work possessing artistic qualities. However, it also includes the architecture and artistic craftsmanship of such works. 

Case: Associated publishers vs Bashyam

Facts: A portrait of Mahatma Gandhi was made based on two photographs.

Held: A portrait based on photographs will be entitled to copyright if it produced a result from the photograph and the portrait itself is original.

Example: A photographer took a photograph of a painting of MF Hussain, then paints the same himself and sells such copies painted by him.

Held: A copyright in a painting is infringed when a person copies from the original painting or a picture of painting.

Cinematographic Films 

Section 2(f) of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines cinematographic films which include any work of visual recording and a sound recording accompanying such visual recording and the expression cinematograph shall be construed as including any work produced by any process analogous to cinematographic including video films. It is classified into secondary works as suggested in clause (b) of section 13 of the act.

Case: R.G. Anand vs Delux Films

Facts: Plaintiff was a producer and play writer of play ‘Hum Hindustani’. The plaintiff tried to consider the possibility of filming and narrated the play to the defendant. The defendant, without informing the plaintiff, made the picture ‘New Delhi’ which was alleged to be based on the said play.

Issue: Whether the film ‘New Delhi’ was an infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright in play ‘Hum Hindustani’?

Held: No, because the stories were different, only the theme “love story” was same.

Case: Balwinder Singh vs Delhi Administration

Held: The concept of cinematograph is not only limited to movies being played in theater it also covers videos and television, they both fall under the preview of cinematograph film.

Level of Originality:

A television report or documentary may be based upon a live incident or a newspaper report, thus the act does not prescribe any specified level of originality in the cinematographic film.

Sound Recordings:

According to section 2(xx) of The Copyright Act, 1957 , sound recording suggests that a recording of sounds from which that sound may be produced regardless of the medium on which such recording is made or the method by which the sounds are produced. Clause (c) of section 13 of the act state sound recordings as a by-product works. 

Case: Gramophone Co. India v. Super Cassette Industries

Facts: ‘G.co’, Plaintiff, produced audio records titled ‘Hum Aapke Hain Kaun’ by Rajashree production ltd, who were the owners of cinematographic work. They had already sold 55 lakhs audio cassettes and 40,000 compact discs titled ‘Hum Aapke Hain Kaun’. The defendants too launched an audio cassette by adopting the same title with its design, color scheme, get up and layout deceptively similar. Permanent Injunction was sought.

Held: Injunction varied by stipulating not to use the same title, design colour scheme etc with bold letters the record is a version of different artists.

RIGHTS OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER 

In the Copyright Act, 1957, the owner possesses the rights which are to prevent others from using his works in certain ways and to claim compensation for the usurpation of that right. In this Act, there are two types of rights given to the owner:

  • Economical rights; 
  • Moral rights.

Economic rights

This right is also known as the Exclusive Rights of the copyright holder provided under  Section 14 of the Act. In this Act different types of work come with different types of rights. Such as:

In the case of original literary, musical, and dramatic work:

  • Right to reproduce;
  • Right to issue copies;
  • Right to perform at public;
  • Right to make cinematography and  sound recording;
  • Right to make any translation;
  • Right to adaptation; and
  • Right to do any other activities related to the translation or adaptation.

In the case, of computer program work:

  • Right to do any act aforesaid mentioned; and
  • Right to sell, rent, offer for sale of the copyrighted work.

In the case of artistic work:

  • Right to communicate;
  • Right to make any cinematography and sound recording;
  • Right to make an adaptation; and
  • Right to do any other activities related to the translation or adaptation. 

In case of a cinematograph film work:

  • Right to sell, rent, offer for sale of the copyrighted work; and
  • Right to communicate.

In the case of  a sound recording work:

  • Right to issue copies; and

Moral rights

In addition to the protection of economic rights, the Copyright Act, 1957 conjointly protects ethical rights, that is due to the actual fact that a literary or inventive work reflects the temperament of the creator, just as much as the economic rights reflect the author’s need to keep the body and the soul of his work out from commercial exploitation and infringement. These rights are supported by  Article 6  of the  Berne Convention  of 1886, formally referred to as a world convention for the protection of literary and inventive works, whose core provision relies on the principle of national treatment, i.e. treats the opposite good as one’s own.

Section 57  of The Copyright Act, of 1957 recognizes two types of moral rights which are:

  • Right to paternity – which incorporates the right to assert the authorship of the work, and the right to forestall others from claiming authorship of his work; and
  • Right to integrity-  which incorporates the right to restrain, or claim damages in respect of any distortion, modification, mutilation, or any other act relating to the said work if such distortion, multiplication, or alternative act would be prejudiced to claimant honor or name.

AUTHORSHIP AND OWNERSHIP IN COPYRIGHT 

Section 17  of this Act recognizes the author as the first owner, which states that subject to the provision of this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein:

  • In the case of literary or dramatic composition, the author,
  • In the case of musical work, the musician,
  • In the case of creative work apart from photography, the artist,
  • In the case of photographic work, the artist,
  • In the case of cinematographic or recording work, the producer,
  • In case of any work generated by any computer virus, the one who created it.

However, this provision provided to bound exception:

  • In case of creation is made by the author underemployment of the proprietor of any newspaper, magazine or any periodic, the said proprietor,
  • In the case where a photograph is taken, painting or portrait is drawn, a cinematograph is made for the valuable consideration of any person, such person,
  • In case of work done in the course of the author’s employment under the contract of service, such employer,
  • In case of  address or speech delivered on behalf of another person in public, such person,
  • In the case of government works, the government,
  • In the case of work done under the direction and control of public undertaking such public undertaking, such and
  • In the case of work done in which the provision of Section 41 apply, concerned international organizations. 

ASSIGNMENT OF COPYRIGHT

The owner of the copyright can generate wealth not only by exploiting it but also by sharing it with others for mutual benefit. This can be done by the way of assignment and licensing of copyright.

Only the owner of the copyright has the right to assign his existing or future copyrighted work either wholly or partly and as a result of such assignment the assignee becomes entitled to all the rights related to copyright to the assigned work, and he shall be treated as the owner of the copyright in respect of those rights.

Mode of the assignment agreement 

As per  Section 19 , these conditions are necessary for a valid assignment: 

  • It should be in writing and signed;
  • It should specify the kinds of rights assigned and the duration or territorial extent; and 
  • It should specify the amount of royalty payable if required in any case.

It is also provided that, if the period is not mentioned in the agreement it will be considered as five years and if the territorial extent is not stipulated in the agreement, it will be considered as applicable to the whole of India. 

Disputes related to the assignment of copyright 

According to the Copyright Act, 1957, the appellant board where the receipt of the complaint by the assignor and after holding necessary inquiry finds that the assignee has failed to make the exercise of the rights assigned to him, and such failure is attributed to any act or omission of the assignor, may by suitable order, revoke such assignment. However, if the dispute arises with respect to the assignment of any copyright then that appellate board may also order the recovery of any royalty payable.

Operation of law in assignment

According to The Copyright Act, 1957, where under a bequest a person is entitled to the manuscript of any literary, dramatic or any other kind of work and such work has not been published before the death of the testator, unless the contrary is proved such person shall be treated as the owner for such work.

INFRINGEMENT AND REMEDIES

Where a person intentionally or unintentionally infringes the rights of the copyright holder, the holder may be subject to the following remedies available under this Act.

Civil remedies

These remedies are given under  Section 55  of the Copyright Act, 1957 which are:

Interlocutory injunction

This is the most important remedy against the copyright infringement, it means a judicial process by which one who is threatening to invade or has invaded the legal or equitable rights of another is restrained from commencing or continuing such act, or is commanded to restore matters to the position in which they stood previous to the relation. Thus for granting the interlocutory injunction, the following three factors are considered as necessary:

  • Prima facie case , an assumption of the court that the plaintiff can succeed in the case and become eligible for relief.
  • Balance of convenience , in it the court will determine which parties suffer the greater harm, this determination can vary with the facts of each case.
  • Irreparable injury,  it is difficult to decide and determine on a case by case basis. Some examples of it include- loss of goodwill or irrevocable damages to reputation, loss of market share.

Mareva injunction

This is a particular form of the interlocutory injunction which restrains the defendant from disposing of assets that may be required to satisfy the plaintiff’s claim or for removing them from the jurisdiction of the Court.

Anton Piller order 

This order is passed to take into possession the infringed documents, copies and other relevant material of the defendant, by the solicitor of the plaintiff. This order is named after the famous case of  Anton Piller KG v/s Manufacturing Process Ltd, 1976 . In this case, the plaintiff Antone Piller, the German manufacturer is successful in passing ex-parte awards of restraining the use of his copyrighted products against the defendant.

John Deo’s order

In this order, the Court has the power to injunct rather than those impeded in the suit, who may be found violating the rights in the field of copyright. Thus this order is issued against the unknown person, who has allegedly committed some wrong, but whose identities cannot entertain the plaintiff.

Pecuniary remedies

There are three types of pecuniary remedies provided:

An account of profit, which lets the owner seek the sum of money made, equal to the profit made through unlawful conduct.

Compensatory damages, which let the copyright owner seek the damages he suffered.

Conversational damages, which are assessed to the value of the article.

Criminal remedies

For infringement of copyright, the criminal remedies provided under  Section 63 :

Imprisonment, not less than 6 months which may extend up to 3 years;

Fine may not be less than 50,000 which may extend up to 2,00,000;

Search and seizure of copyrighted goods; and

Delivery of copyrighted goods to the copyrighted owner. 

In the case of repeat offenders, the minimum punishment terms of 1 year and a fine of 1 lakh however, the highest punishment will be the same as the first-time offender.

This act shall not constitute copyright infringement in cases of:

Fair Dealing

Fair dealing is the statutory limitation on the exclusive right of the copyright owner which permits the reproduction or use of copyrighted work in a manner that otherwise would have constituted infringement. This law is given under  Section 52  of the Copyright Act, 1957 according to which the free uses can be made for any work except computer programs for the purposes:

  • For private and personal use including research,
  • For criticism and review,
  • For reporting of current events or issues including lectures in public,
  • For broadcasting in cinematographic films or by posting photographs,
  • For reproduction and reporting of any judicial proceeding,
  • For reproduction, or publication of any kind of work prepared by the secretariat of a legislature,
  • For reproduction of any kind of work in a certified copy made or supplied accordance with any law,
  • For reading and recitation of any literary or dramatic work in the public domain,
  • For publication of any non-copyright matter bona fide intended for the use of educational institutes, and
  • For recording any sound by the owner of the right in the work.

INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT ORDERS

Chapter IX of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 describes the provisions of international copyright. Section 40 states the powers to extend copyright to foreign works and section 42 governs the provisions as to works of certain international organizations.

The power to extend copyright to foreign works is as follows -

The Central Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, direct that all or any provisions of this Act, shall apply.

(a) To publish work first within the territory of India and then outside 

(b) To unpublished works, the authors whereof were at the time of the making of the work, subjects or citizens of a foreign country to which the order relates, in like manner as if the authors were citizens of India.

(c) In respect of domicile in any territory outside India to which the order relates in like manner as if such domicile were in India

(d) To any work of which the author was at the date of the first publication thereof, or, in the case where the author was dead at the date, was at the time of his death, a subject or citizens of a foreign country to which the order relates in like manner as if the author was a citizen of India at that date or time.

According to section 42 of the act, it provides power to restrict rights in works of foreign authors first published in India – If it appears to the Central Government that a foreign country does not give or has not undertaken to give adequate protection to the works of Indian authors, the Central Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, direct that such of the provisions of this Act as confer copyright on works first published after the date specified in the order, the authors whereof are subjects or citizens of a such foreign country and are not domiciled in India, and thereupon those provisions shall not apply to such works.

ISSUES IN DIGITAL COPYRIGHTS

Digital Right Management includes techniques which have been developed to control duplication, modification and distribution of original works. The authors or the creators of the original works contend that DRM techniques are necessary in order to protect their interest by preventing free and unauthorized copying and distribution of their work.

However there are few who support the view that DRM techniques pose unnecessary hurdles for the public and impede the way of innovation and creativity by not letting others from being motivated by the original work of others.

PROVISIONS UNDER INDIAN COPYRIGHT LAW

Many techniques have been developed to protect the original work like digital watermarking, access and copy controls etc. However, despite the fact that these techniques have been incorporated in the legislation, regulation and protection of original works in the digital environment remains a goal that is yet to be achieved. It is very important that ideas should be available to the general public so that the flow of creativity must not be blocked. However, creators and authors must always be incentivized for their efforts. Hence the interest of both must be kept in mind while enacting and implementing DRM techniques.

Strengthening of Border Measures

Section 53, dealing with the importation of infringing copies, has been substituted with a new section providing detailed border measures to strengthen the enforcement of rights by making provisions to control the import of infringing copies by the Customs Department, disposal of infringing copies and presumption of authorship under civil remedies.

Protection of Technological Measures

The new section 65A, introduced for protection of technological protection measures (TPM) used by a copyright owner to protect his rights on the work, makes circumvention of it a criminal offense punishable with imprisonment.

As a result, any person who circumvents an effective technological measure applied for the protection of any of the rights, with the intention of infringing such rights, shall be punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine. The rationale is to prevent the possibility of high-rate infringement (digital piracy) in digital media.

This amendment also clarifies the problem of circumvention impacting the public interest on access to work facilitated by copyright laws. Sub-section (2) permits circumvention for specified uses.

Digital Rights Management Information

Section 65B has been introduced to provide protection of rights management information, which has been defined under clause (xa) of section 2.

This amendment is intended to prevent the removal of the rights management information without authority and distributing any work, fixed performance or phonogram, after removal of rights management information. As a result, any unauthorized and intentional removal or alteration of any rights management information is a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to two years and fine. The rationale of the protection emanates from the practice in the digital world of managing the rights through online contracts governing the terms and conditions of use.

The protection of technological measures and rights management information were introduced in WCT and WPPT as effective measures to prevent the infringement of copyright in digital environments. The introduction of Sections 65A and 65B is expected to help the film, music and publishing industry in fighting piracy.

About the Author: This Law Notes is prepared by Ms. Anubha Mathur, law student at Amity University, Noida and was an intern at MyLawman. She can be reached at [email protected]

MyLawman is now on  Telegram (t.me/mylawman)  Follow us for regular legal updates. Follow us on Google News, Instagram,  LinkedIn ,  Facebook  & Twitter or join our  whats app group  .You can also subscribe for our Newsletter for Email Updates.  

  For More Law Notes on IPR, Click Here

Submit your post by Email here |  Join our Team here.

You may like these posts, post a comment.

' height=

Get Privacy enabled WhatsApp Updates

Get Privacy enabled WhatsApp Updates

To Stay Updated about the Posts of MyLawman: Legal Updates on the go, Join our Social Media Pages

To Stay Updated about the Posts of MyLawman: Legal Updates on the go, Join our Social Media Pages

Like us on FB

Like us on FB

Follow us on Instagram

Follow us on linkedin.

Follow us on Linkedin

UGC NET Crash Course, Coming Soon!!!

UGC NET Crash Course, Coming Soon!!!

Join our New Follow cult. Get new posts by email:

Follow us on fb, social plugin, we are mylawman.

We are MyLawman

We love to hear, Write to us

Menu footer widget.

  • Submission Guidelines
  • Publication Policy
  • Privacy Policy

New Case Study: Overlap Between Industrial Design and Copyright Protection in India

India IP SME Helpdesk Case Study

In this new case study, we explore why in India copyright and industrial design protections are not complementary and how to act in order to avoid problems with the protection of your designs.

At the core of the case study is an independent European boutique designer, who - having developed goodwill and a reputation associated with a quality and unique clothing design in Europe - decided to expand its business operations to India as it had identified a high demand for international good quality designer products. From its experience in the European market, the designer was aware that clothing designs and sketches are automatically protected under copyright laws from the moment of their creation as mandated by the Berne Convention. The EU designer saw that India was also signatory of the Berne Convention, and therefore did not register its designs in India.

However, as the EU designer’s brand gained a growing reputation in India, it came to its attention that a local brand had started to copy its designs and sell look-alike clothes for substantially lower prices.

Share this page

  • Legal Columns
  • Socio Legal Column
  • Case Analysis
  • Academic Block
  • Know the Law
  • Legal Discourse
  • Get In Touch
  • Write For Us
  • Intern With Us

Major Cases Under The Copyright Act, 1957

Law Wire Team

The rights connected to intangible property that is owned by a person or business and is prohibited from being used without permission are known as Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) . So-called intellectual property rights are those that belong to the ownership of intellectual property. By allowing the producers of trademarks, patents, or works protected by copyright to profit from their works, these rights seek to protect intellectual property (creations of human intellect).

In order to reward human intelligence, IPR grants producers’ exclusive rights over their innovations, artistic creations, musical compositions, etc.

There are different kinds of Intellectual Property Rights in India, majorly 4 i.e; Trademarks, Copyrights, Patents and Designs . Trade Secrets, Plant Breeders Right and Geographical indications are other IP Rights.

The different forms of IPRs in India are governed by various legislations such as:

The Trade Marks Act, 1999 The Copyright Act, 1957 The Patents Act, 1970 and The Designs Act, 2000

This article will be dealing with major copyrights cases in India.

THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957

Copyright protects an individual’s legal right to financially exploit their unique, tangible creative work and forbids unauthorised duplication or reproduction. Patents grant rights to the idea itself, whereas copyright protects the expression of a notion rather than the concept itself. Original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works as well as cinematographic and sound recordings are protected by Section 13 of the Copyright Act of 1957. There are 79 Sections and XV Chapters in the Copyright Act, 1957.

According to the Copyright Act, owners have the sole right to reproduce a work, create a derivative work, circulate copies of a copyrighted work, transfer ownership of the work or a license to use it, perform the work in public, and display it.

The following types of works are often protected by copyright:

  • literary creations including books, plays, poems, and journal articles;
  • database applications and software;
  • Movies, music, and choreography
  • artistic creations like sculptures, paintings, drawings, and pictures
  • ads, technical drawings, and architectural
  • Star India Ltd. vs. Moviestrunk.com & Ors., CS(COMM) 408/2019

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Star India Pvt Ltd was a film production and distribution company. The plaintiff produces and distributes films in India along with its subsidiary Fox Star Studio, and it also possesses exclusive rights to a number of films. The cinematograph film “Mission Mangal” which was scheduled to be released on August 15, 2019, on over 2500 theatres in India, is the subject of the current lawsuit. According to the Copyright Act of 1957, the plaintiff and defendant No. 68, Cape of Good Films LLP, jointly own the intellectual property rights to the movie.

The plaintiff filed the current lawsuit against 67 named defendant-websites [defendant Nos. 1 to 67] who, in the plaintiff’s opinion, are involved in the business of transmitting third-party content and information through the internet, thereby providing illegal content, among other things, through hosting, streaming, and free public broadcasting.

In the current lawsuit, the plaintiff fears that illegally made copies of the movie will be distributed to the public and made available for viewing and/or downloading without the plaintiff’s consent. This will negatively affect the plaintiff’s business and, in the plaintiff’s view, violates the exclusive rights granted to it by Sections 14 and 51 of the Act.

Whether the plaintiff’s Copyrights were infringed by the defendants?

Section 14 & 51 of the Copyrights Act, granting exclusive rights to the plaintiff

Section 14 in the Copyright Act, 1957

14(d) – in the case of a cinematograph film—

  • to make a copy of the film including a photograph of any image forming part thereof;
  • to sell or give on hire or offer for sale or hire, any copy of the film, regardless of whether such copy has been sold or given on hire on earlier occasions;
  • to communicate the film to the public;

Section 51 in the Copyright Act, 1957

When copyright infringed—Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed—

(a) when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a licence so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act—

The Law of Copyrights, i.e, The Copyright Act, 1957 Section 14 and 51 is granting exclusive rights to the plaintiff and is applicable in this case as the defendants have infringed the rights of the plaintiff by transmitting the Content (Mission Mangal movie) made by the plaintiff for free of cost.

According to the Hon’ble Court, it is clear from looking at the electronic scraps of evidence and the investigator’s affidavit that the plaintiff’s content (the movie Mission Mangal) has been streamed on the various defendant-websites illegally and without the plaintiff’s consent. Due to unauthorised streaming, the Hon’ble Court issued an ex-parte interim order against Defendant No. 1-67 as ‘Mission Mangal’ was being downloaded, distributed, and communicated via their websites.

After giving appropriate consideration to the aforementioned factors, the Hon’ble Court issued a decree in favour of the plaintiff against defendants nos. 1-67 and 69. The plaintiff was also awarded the real expenses of the case by the court, which included court costs and solicitors’ fees.

The court ordered an Injunction.

  • The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford

Rameshwari Photocopy Services, (2016) 16 DRJ (SN) 678

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FACTS

Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, and Taylor & Francis (“Oxford”) filed a lawsuit for copyright infringement against Rameshwari Photocopy Services (“RPS”) and Delhi University (“DU”) in 2012 over the unauthorised use and reproduction of Oxford’s publications to create and sell “course packs,” which were collections of study materials for students’ reference. The RPS and DU were prohibited from creating and marketing these course packs, as well as from compiling them, by a temporary injunction issued by the Single Bench of the Delhi High Court. As defendants in the trial, the Association of Students for Equitable Access to Knowledge (ASEAK) and the Society for the Promotion of Equitable Access and Knowledge (SPEAK) were also listed.

In September 2016, the Delhi High Court rendered a decision in favour of RPS and DU. According to the Court, the presence of copyright in literary works does not grant writers entire ownership of their works; rather, it is a privilege to stimulate advancement in the arts for the prosperity of the public mind. Oxford appealed the Single Bench’s ruling to the Division Bench.

Whether the course packs’ replication of certain sections violate anyone’s copyright?

Sections 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act allows for fair dealing with copyrighted works for the purpose of research, private study, criticism, review, or news reporting.

The Delhi High Court ruled that educational institutions can make copies of copyrighted works for distribution among students and teachers for instructional purposes without infringing copyright.

On December 9th, 2016, the Delhi High Court Division Bench considered Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act to permit course packs to be made by printing copyrighted literary works. As a result, any copyrighted information that is duplicated by a teacher or a student during educational teaching is not considered to be infringing on copyright under Section 52 (1) (i) of the Copyright Act.

Accordingly, it was decided that regardless of the proportion of the work actually used, the sole test to be upheld when deciding whether the use of a copyrighted work was fair under Section 52(1)(i) was the necessity of the work in achieving the goal of educational instruction. It was also held that students were not potential buyers of the books used in the course packs because they would eventually refer to the same works in the library hence not having an unfavourable influence on Oxford’s market.

The Division Bench accordingly rejected Oxford’s appeal. The Court made it clear that RPS did not require a permit or a licence to copy. The Single Bench was assigned with making a factual assessment regarding whether the copyrighted works in the course packs were actually required for certain educational objectives. Oxford withdrew its lawsuit from the Delhi High Court on March 9, 2017.

Therefore, the Court held that the reproduction of copyrighted material for educational use falls under the fair use exception, as long as it is for instructional purposes and does not harm the market for the original work

OVERLAPPING OF DESIGNS ACT, 2000 AND COPYRIGHTS ACT, 1957

  Section 15 of the Copyright Act addresses the dual protection or the issue of conflict between the design and copyright. According to the section, a design that has been registered under the Designs Act of 2000 would not be protected by copyright. As a result, the owner of the design must give up his or her rights under the Copyright Act when the design is registered under the Designs Act.

One such case is the following:

  • Ritika Private Limited vs Biba Apparels Private Limited CS(OS) No.182/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

The plaintiff has brought this lawsuit, claiming copyright in a number of designs and drawings she developed for dresses sold under the trade name/brand RITU KUMAR. The drawings and sketches are said to be distinctive, special, and associated with the plaintiff’s brand RITU KUMAR, which has a strong reputation and goodwill. It is argued that the sketches and garment prints made by the plaintiff for the dresses/garments are original. It is argued that the plaintiff’s ensembles are created in such a way that each part, including the sleeves, front and back panels, etc., is distinct and coordinated with special characteristics. It is claimed that the plaintiff keeps digital records of the production of each drawing and print by assigning it an identification code and name, which are also displayed in the invoices the plaintiff issues. Additionally, the plaintiff claims that the defendant has violated its trade secrets by hiring former workers of the plaintiff. Ritu Kumar reproduces the said designs on its apparels, more than 50 times.

The plaintiff in the case requested an injunction to prevent the defendant from reproducing, printing, publishing, distributing, selling prints or clothing that are a colorable imitation or substantial reproduction of the plaintiff’s prints and clothing. The defendant is also accused of violating additional related reliefs such as injunctions and rendition of accounts.

Whether Plaintiff can claim the copyright in the artistic works related to the garments?

Whether Plaintiff can claim trade secret violation by its ex-employees, being the Plaintiff ’s designs not registered under the Designs Act, 2000.

The definition of a ‘design’ under Section 2(d), excludes “any artistic work as defined in clause (c) of section 2 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957)”

Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, states that “Copyright in any design, which is capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000 (16 of 2000), but which has not been so registered, shall cease as soon as any article to which the design has been applied has been reproduced more than fifty times by an industrial process by the owner of the copyright, or, with his licence, by any other person.”

Copyright would be present in the original work of art, and the author or holder would continue to benefit from the extended protection provided by the Copyright Act with regard to the original artistic work. So, for example, a well-known picture will still be protected as an artistic work under the Copyright Act. A design made from such a painting for industrial use on an article in order to produce one with features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, composition of lines, or combination of colours that is pleasing to the eye would also be entitled to design protection under the terms of the Designs Act.

Therefore, if the design is registered under the Designs Act, the Design would lose its copyright protection under the Copyright Act but not the original painting. If a design meets the requirements to be registered under the Designs Act but has not yet been done so, it will continue to be protected by copyright under the Act until the threshold of 50 applications of the design using an industrial method on an article is reached. However, if that threshold is crossed, the Copyright Act’s copyright protection would no longer apply. According to our interpretation, the Copyright Act and the Designs Act would be consistent with the legislative intent.

CONCLUSION  

The single judge of the Delhi High Court, came to the conclusion that the suit was barred by Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 as the Plaintiff’s copyright in the cited works had expired.

Ritu Kumar was therefore not only ineligible for design protection, but also ineligible to enforce its copyright in the design’s original drawing, as a result of replicating the aforementioned designs on its clothing more than 50 times. The court determined that there was no copyright infringement by noting the similarities between the Plaintiff’s prints and designs and the Defendant’s printed reproduction, but rather by concluding that the Defendant was using an industrial process to create apparel rather than simply stealing and attaching a print from the Plaintiff’s copyrighted work.

  • Raj Rewal v Union of India &Ors, CS(COMM) 3/2018, IA 90/2018

Plaintiff is an acclaimed architect from India who is internationally recognised; the plaintiff has designed many important buildings throughout his forty-year distinguished career; some of the creations include the Hall of Nations, the Nehru Pavilion, the Asian Games Village, the National Institute of Immunology, the SCOPE Office Complex, and the Library for Indian Parliament.

The building housing the Hall of Nations was created by Mr. Raj Rewal and Mr. Mahendra Raj, who also served as structural designers. The aforementioned structure, which was built on the Pragati Maidan grounds in New Delhi, was acclaimed as a symbol of modernist Indian architecture. The Hall of Nations complex was intended to be demolished in 2016 by the ITPO (India Trade Promotion Organisation) in order to construct an “Integrated Exhibition cum Convention Centre.” Plaintiff made numerous attempts to stop the building from being demolished, but to no avail; ITPO got what it wanted. After the structure was demolished, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against ITPO, alleging that the acts of demolition had violated the plaintiff’s special rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act.

The suit seeks a mandatory injunction against the Union of India and the Indian Trade Promotion Organisation (ITPO) to compensate the plaintiff by recreating the work of architecture in the Hall of Nations and Nehru Pavilion at the same location or at any other location in Delhi.

Whether an architect, as the creator and legal ‘author’ of a structure, has the right to object to modification or demolition of their work by the building’s owner?

Section 57 of The Copyright Act, 1957

Two types of copyright protection are granted under the Copyright Act of 1957, one of which is in the form of moral rights. The essential moral rights of an author or creator are described in Section 57 of this Act. The rights of paternity and integrity for authors are established in this section.

The right of paternity refers to the right of a creator or author to claim ownership or authorship of the work in question, as well as the right to prohibit others from claiming authorship of his or her work. By enabling the author to prohibit any type of distortion, mutilation, or other form of modification of his or her work, the right of integrity aids in maintaining the authenticity of the author’s work.

Section 13(1)(a) of the Copyright Act , copyright subsists in such artistic work

It was argued that Section 57(b) of the Copyright Act only gives rights in relation to the work’s distortion, mutilation, or modification and is not concerned with total destruction of the work when the work ceases to exist and is no longer visible. It was contended that utter obscurity of an architectural work is analogous to failing to display a work dealt with in explanation to Section 57(1) of the Act, which has been ruled not to be a violation of the rights given thereunder.

It was also argued that Section 57 is intended to allow the architect to either restrain modification or distortion of the work in order to remove the artistic elements in which the author has a copyright or to claim damages for the same; however, when the work is completely removed and is not in public view, the question of the same affecting the author’s rights does not arise.

In Karnataka State Financial Corporation Vs. N. Narasimahaiah [ (2008) 5 SCC 176], it was held that right to property although no longer a fundamental right is still a constitutional right and also a human right.

The Court rejected the plaintiff’s claims, framing the matter as a clash between two different rights: the architect’s rights under Section 57 and the landowner’s rights to do acts on their property.

The Court observed that the plaintiff in this case cannot be allowed to prevent the defendant from demolishing the building because doing so would restrict the defendant’s right to exercise control over their property and land, which is provided to them under Article 300A, which is a constitutional right that prevails over the plaintiff’s statutory rights, which they claim exist under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

According to the Court, the author’s right under Section 57 to prohibit “distortion, mutilation, or modification of his work” does not allow an author to prevent the destruction of their work because “what cannot be viewed, seen, heard, or felt cannot be imperfect and cannot affect the author’s honour or reputation.”

As a result, the extent to which the architect’s right extends is to prohibit the building owner from making changes to the architect’s design and passing it off as though the architect developed the design.

Furthermore, the Court relied on Section 52(1)(x), which provides an exception to the architect’s copyright. The Court stated that Section 57 could not reasonably contemplate the right to object to demolishing a building.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the suit due to a lack of cause of action against the demolition of the Hall of Nations.

  • MRF vs Metro Tyres Limited, CS(COMM) 753/2017

In this case, the plaintiff, MRF Limited, is in the business of manufacturing, marketing, and selling tyres in around sixty-five nations, including India, and is well-known for its quality and customer satisfaction.

Throughout the course of its operations, the plaintiff has manufactured and sold a variety of tyres, one of which is known as MRF NV Series “REVZ.”

The plaintiff created an audio-visual advertising titled “MRF NV Series present REVZ” to publicise and advertise the MRF NV Series “REVZ” line of tyres, which was initially aired in TV media on June 27, 2015 and put on the internet on June 29, 2015.

Plaintiff is the author of said advertising, which is a ‘cinematograph work’ under Section 2(f) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and is entitled to protection under Section 14 of the Act, 1957, under the Indian copyright regime.

In October 2016, it came into knowledge of plaintiff that the defendant, who is involved in the same business had prepared a similar advertising titled ‘Bazooka Radial Tyres’.

The plaintiff thus claimed that it is clear that the defendant’s advertisement is nothing more than a substantial and material copy of the plaintiff’s advertisement, and that the defendant has infringed on the plaintiff’s copyright as a result of the similarities between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s advertisements. Following that, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI). Plaintiff’s complaint was

conveyed to defendant by ASCI. When the defendant received the complaint, he filed a suit to prevent the plaintiff from issuing threats.

Whether in a claim for copyright infringement of a cinematograph film, the infringing duplicate must be either an exact copy generated by a duplication process or a material copy.

Section 2(f), Section 13(1), Section 14 of Copyright Act, 1957

2(f) cinematograph film means any work of visual recording 13(1) Works in which copyright subsists

  • original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works;
  • cinematograph films; and
  • sound recording

Section 14: Meaning of copyright.

While discussing the problem of copying the material and substantial part of the cinematograph, the court stated that the term of copying does not only include making an actual copy or physical copies of the cinematograph film, but also includes imitation and reproduction of such cinematograph. Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court noted that “the ordinary, dictionary definition of copy is not confined to an actual copy made by a duplication process, but is a broader one that includes an imitation or reproduction.”

In the case of R.G. Anand v. M/s Deluxe Films and Ors .,(1978 AIR 1613, 1979 SCR (1) 218) the court laid down a test to be applied to cinematographs, stating that “the scope of protection of a film is at par with other original works” and thus the test laid down in the R.G Anand case would also apply in cases of cinematographs. The Hon’ble High Court also observed that the standard established in the R.G. Anand case is of general application and is not restricted to literary work.

After observing the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ commercials and adopting the standard outlined in R.G. Anand v. M/s Deluxe Films and Ors. (supra), this Court concludes that the two advertisements are not significantly, materially, or fundamentally similar. In comparison to the defendants, the plaintiffs’ advertisement is more futuristic. Indeed, the expressions in both commercials are distinct. While the plaintiff’s commercial focuses on the tyre’s manufacturing process and radial design, the defendant’s advertisement focuses on the tyre’s durability by demonstrating how well it rides on all terrains.

As a result of the court’s above ruling, the application for injunction was denied, and Metro Tyres committed no violation of copyright (advertisement).

Law Wire Team

Media, Censorship and Propaganda– A Legal Analysis

Stamp duty in uttarakhand, bhartiya sakshya adhiniyam, 2023 and indian evidence act, 1872: key differences, leave a reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Most Popular

Intellectual property rights infringement in the era of artificial intelligence.

Mail us: [email protected]

case study on copyright in india

The translation has been facilitated via Google translate, viewer discretion advised to check precision.

Copyright © 2020 Law Wire.

We Help You File Transfer of Petition in Supreme Court

Call Ph no 9873628941 or Email: [email protected]

Copyright Process in India

File mutual divorce.

  • Register Your Creative Work
  • Prevent Theft
  • Copyright Law
  • Internet Service Providers
  • Perfume Smell
  • Copyright Societies
  • Copyright Court Order
  • YouTube case
  • ISPs In India
  • Copyright on Historical book
  • Copyright Articles
  • Anton Piller
  • Graphical User Interface
  • Publication in Copyright
  • Lawyers Forum
  • Copyright in Cyberspace
  • Originality Under Law

BananaIP Counsels Logo

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Image accompanying blogpost on "Latest Copyright Cases in 2022 - Part 1"

Latest Copyright Cases in 2022 – Part 1

This running post provides a summary of the latest Copyright cases decided by courts in India in 2022:

Samir Kasal v. Prashant Mehta & Ors.

The Plaintiff conceptualized a cricket league format titled ‘Legends Premier League’ wherein famous retired cricket players would play a Test format of cricket. The details about the same were provided to Defendant No. 2 in a strictly confidential manner. However, the Defendants decided to organize ‘Legends League Cricket’ without the Plaintiff’s consent which led him to file this case.

The Plaintiff contended the Defendants’ acts were a breach of confidentiality. Additionally, the Plaintiff claimed that the idea conceptualized by them amounted to ‘work’ under Section 2(y) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Whereas, the Defendants No. 2 to 4 contended that the Plaintiff’s idea was neither original nor novel due to similar elements in prior cricket games that existed in the public domain. Additionally, the Defendants No. 2 to 4 claimed that infringement could not be claimed by the Plaintiff because the alleged ‘work’ was not ‘completed’. Lastly, the Defendant contended that there was no breach of confidentiality due to absence of a contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2.

The Court held that the Plaintiff’s idea did not amount to a ‘work’ under the Act because common elements of the same existed in the public domain for years thereby rendering the Plaintiff’s idea unoriginal. Additionally, the Court held that the conversations via emails and WhatsApp Messages were inconclusive in formation of a quasi-contract. Lastly, the Court opined that the obligation of confidentiality could not continue indefinitely thereby dismissing the Plaintiff’s claims with respect to breach of confidentiality. Thus, the Court concluded that the balance of convenience was in favour of the Defendants.

Citation :  Samir Kasal v. Prashant Mehta & Ors. , Decided by The Delhi High Court on 19 th January, 2022, available at  Samir Kasal v. Prashant Mehta & Ors. , last visited on 22nd January, 2022.

M/s. Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. … v. DXC Technology Pvt. Ltd.

The Common Plaintiff was in the business of protecting copyrights that subsist in sound recordings, in their capacity as an assignee, licensee or authorized agent. The Plaintiff claimed exclusive copyright to the extent of exploitation of the on-ground performance rights of various sound recordings on the basis of assignment agreements. The Defendants in both the suits contested that the Plaintiff was neither a copyright society nor a member of a copyright society thereby dis-entitled to receive any license fees.

The Plaintiff contended that an owner of a sound recording does not come within the ambit of Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957, where the role of a copyright society comes into the picture. Additionally, the Plaintiff contended that the right of a copyright owner is recognized under Section 30 of the Act thereby rendering a registration under Section 33(3) unnecessary.

The Defendants contended that the spirit of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 was to prevent exploitation of copyright in sound recordings. Additionally, the Defendants emphasized that its spirit will be defeated if the Plaintiff escapes registration as a copyright society under Section 33(3) of the Act.

The Court dismissed the Defendants’ distinct reliance on Section 30 and held that Section 30 does not distinguish between individuals and businesses that grant licenses and such distinction could be found in Section 33(3). The Court held that a business of issuing licenses has to be routed ‘only’ through a copyright society that is registered under Section 33(3). The reliefs prayed for by the Plaintiff, were thus denied by the Court because they were held to be statutorily barred from issuing licenses.

Citation :  M/s. Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. DXC Technology Pvt. Ltd., Decided by The Madras High Court on 8 th December, 2021, available at  M/s. Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. DXC Technology Pvt. Ltd. , last visited on 22nd January, 2022.

DocTutorials Edutech Private Limited v. Telegram FZ-LLC & Ors.,

The suit was filed by the Plaintiff against unknown Defendants No. 5 & 6 (referred to as John Doe), as well as any other persons associated with them, for releasing its paid content on a platform run by Defendants No. 1 & 2, i.e., Telegram. The Plaintiff Company provided online content for medical entrance exam preparations, through its website and mobile applications, and was the sole licensee of the copyright over the preparatory content. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants 5 & 6 hacked into its secure service and obtained the copyrighted material, and disbursed them on channels made on Defendant No. 1’s app, and Defendant No.2’s website. The Plaintiff further asserted that the Defendants No. 1 & 2 did not take down the infringing content despite receipt of notices from the Plaintiff. The Defendants 1 & 2 asserted that they had taken all possible measures to take down the infringing content that appeared on their platforms, and that they would continue to do so when notified by the Plaintiff. The Court took into consideration the claims, and agreed that the Plaintiff had made a prima facie case, and that it would cause irreparable harm to the Plaintiff if the relief was not granted. The Court held that Defendants 5 & 6 were infringing Plaintiff’s copyright and restrained them from using the copyrighted content on their platforms. The Court also ordered Defendants 1 & 2 to provide the Plaintiff with all the details that they had regarding Defendants 5 & 6. The Court concluded by stating that Defendants 1 and 2 would remain bound by their statement that they would take down all the unauthorized content and block all channels which contain such infringing content, expeditiously. Citation: DocTutorials Edutech Private Limited v. Telegram FZ-LLC & Ors., decided on January 25, 2022, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29709924/ , Accessed on January 28, 2022.

This post is brought to you by BananaIP’s Consulting & Strategy Department.

About BananaIP’s Consulting & Strategy Department

BananaIP’s IP Consulting & Strategy Department has the experience of helping companies use IP for business and competitive advantage. Companies regularly seek their assistance, advise and opinions on identifying/mining inventions and creations, conducting IP audits, protecting IP assets appropriately, launching risk free products, managing litigation for business benefit, resolving disputes out of Court, making money out of IP, enforcing IP, and licensing transactions.

Updates on recent orders and judgments are brought to you by Consulting & Strategy Divisions of BananaIP Counsels, a Top ranked IP Firm in India. If you have any questions, or need any clarifications, please write to [email protected]    with the subject: Copyright Judgements

Please note that these case updates have been put together from different sources, primary and secondary, and BananaIP’s reporters may not have verified all the decisions published in the bulletin. You may write to [email protected]   for corrections and take down.

You May Also Like

This image depicts the available areas for SMEs with regard to IP. The major areas are Cardiovascular, Antinoplastic and Neurological. The remaining form the grey areas for SMEs. Click on the image to read the full post.

Value of IP for Small and Medium Enterprises

Trademark Infringement

Choosing the Right IP Name/Business Representation

Leave a comment cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

IMAGES

  1. New Case Study: Overlap Between Industrial Design and Copyright

    case study on copyright in india

  2. Top 5 Copyright Cases of 2019 in India

    case study on copyright in india

  3. (PDF) LAW OF COPYRIGHT IN INDIA

    case study on copyright in india

  4. Assignment of Copyright in India

    case study on copyright in india

  5. (DOC) COPYRIGHT ACT IN INDIA

    case study on copyright in india

  6. Important Sections of Copyright in India

    case study on copyright in india

VIDEO

  1. Current Static GK for All competitive Exam SSC ,Banking

  2. CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSING 2 (Dr. Nikhil Rajput)

  3. WHAT IS COPYRIGHT..? प्रतिलिप्याधिकार क्या होता है ALL ABOUT SOCIOLOGY

  4. Crazy Study HACK For STUDENTS! #shortsindia #millionairemindset #viralvideo

  5. What is Copyright । कॉपीराइट। Intellectual Properties। IPR @laweasy2222

  6. Lecture on Copyright Societies

COMMENTS

  1. Top 5 Copyright Cases of 2019 in India

    Top 5 Copyright Cases of 2019 in India by Intepat Interns Copyright January 17, 2020 Top 5 Copyright Cases in 2019 1. Sajeev Pillai v. VenuKunnapalli & Anr Issue: Does the author of work, even after the assignment of work, have special rights to claim authorship of his work provided under Section 57 (1) of the Copyright Act? Facts:

  2. Important Indian Copyright Cases

    Important Indian Copyright Cases - 2021 January 17, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Copyrights, Intellectual Property 0 Comment In this post, we bring to you Important Copyright Cases decided by Indian Courts in the year 2021 Krishna Kishore Singh vs. Sarla A. Saraogi & Ors.

  3. 13 Copyright Infringement Cases in India // Bytescare

    13 Copyright Infringement Cases in India Manish Jindal January 10, 2024 | 7 min read India's vibrant cultural landscape has fostered a rich tapestry of artistic creations. However, with the surge of digital platforms and widespread content sharing, copyright infringement has become a pressing concern.

  4. Copyright Judgement in India: Here are some famous cases

    Copyright Judgement in India: Here are some famous cases Pankaj Tyagi 28 May, 2021 Reading Time: 4 Minutes Copyright protection is the best way of safeguarding work of art from possible duplication and infringement. But there are instances when the protected work or a logo counterfeited by the defaulters for the sake of profit.

  5. Copyright piracy and cybercrime: enforcement challenges in India

    While in the recent case of Knit Pro International v State of Delhi (2022), the Indian Supreme Court declared criminal copyright infringement as a "non-bailable" and "cognizable" offence (i.e. one is arrestable without warrant and only a court can grant bail), the ground-level impact of the decision is unclear.

  6. Latest Indian Copyright Cases

    1. Sony Pictures Network India Pvt. Ltd. vs. www.sportsala.tv And Ors., High Court of Delhi, CS (COMM) 289/2021

  7. Copyright Infringement Cases in India 2022

    18 January 2024 17,126 10 mins read Understand copyright infringement cases in India, examining legal proceedings, penalties, and impactful judgments that define intellectual property protection. Introduction

  8. Recap 2021

    Recap 2021 - Indian Copyright Case Laws January 31, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Case Study, Copyrights, Intellectual Property 0 Comment In this post, we bring to you few Copyright Cases decided by Indian Courts in the year 2021:- Sony Pictures Network India Pvt. Ltd. vs. www.sportsala.tv And Ors

  9. Copyright Protection in India- Overview and Recent Developments

    In case of original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works the time period of copyright in India is 60 years in addition to the author's lifespan. Where there are multiple authors, the term is 60 years post the death of the last author.

  10. Copyright Act, 1957:A Study with Reference to Selected Cases in India

    Vishwasrao Mane Shivaji University, Kolhapur Namita Khot Shivaji University, Kolhapur Abstract The law of Copyright Act 1957 has been giving protection to literary, dramatic or musical works,...

  11. PDF Study on Copyright Piracy in India

    STUDY ON COPYRIGHT PIRACY IN INDIA Chapter I ... India's copyright legislation had been amended from time to time, e.g. in 1983, 1984 and 1994, since its commencement in 1958. ... For example, in case of endusers (individuals) samples were selected from the places of purchase and/or final use of copyrighted products such as

  12. 5 Leading Cases of Intellectual Property Rights

    5 Leading Cases of Intellectual Property Rights By Fathima Mehendi Published on 13 Oct 2023 9:35 AM GMT In this article, the author has discussed 5 leading case laws under Patent Law, Copyright Law, and Trademarks Law. 5 Leading Cases of Intellectual Property Rights | Overview Bayer Corporation v. Union of India Diamond v. Chakrabarty Yahoo!

  13. [Law Notes] Indian Copyrights Act, 1957 with Case Laws| IPR by Anubha

    Case: Macmillan & Co. v. K.J Cooper. Facts: Plaintiff's book consisted of selected passages from Plutarch's life of Alexander the Great, joined together by a few words to give a different appearance. The book also contained an introduction and notes useful for education. A similar book was published by the defendants with notes.

  14. Case Study: Copyright Infringement in India

    Take a look at our new case study on copyright infringement and discover the steps an SME took to impede the unauthorised use of their software in India. A French SME with a global reputation for developing computer programmes for the modelling, simulation and creation of products sought to expand its presence in the Indian market. The SME was ...

  15. Summary of Indian Copyright, Entertainment Law Cases and Rules of 2019

    Court: Madras High Court The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court recently issued an interim direction to the central government, to prohibit downloading of the TikTok Application on account of pornography and inappropriate content being made available on the platform.

  16. New Case Study: Overlap Between Industrial Design and Copyright

    In this new case study, we explore why in India copyright and industrial design protections are not complementary and how to act in order to avoid problems with the protection of your designs. At the core of the case study is an independent European boutique designer, who - having developed goodwill and a reputation associated with a quality ...

  17. Top Cases of Copyright Law in 2019

    3926 0 Image Source - https://bit.ly/39c0Emj This article is written by Arijit Mishra, from KIIT School of Law, Odisha. This article talks about the top cases under copyright in 2019. Introduction Top cases on Copyright in 2019 Sanjeev Pillai Vs. Vennu Kurnapalli and Anr Tips Industries Vs. Wynk Music Raj Rewal Vs. UOI and Ors Yash Raj Films Vs.

  18. "Zanjeer" : the famous copyright infringement case

    Zanjeer (Salim Khan and Another v. Sumeet Prakash Mehra And Others) "Zanjeer" is a 1973 blockbuster Hindi film, featuring legendary actors Amitabh Bachchan, Jaya Bachchan, Pran, Ajit Khan, and Bindu. There is no doubt that this film was one of the finest dramas ever made. The sequel of this blockbuster hit was written by Salim Khan with the ...

  19. Major Cases Under The Copyright Act, 1957

    Major Cases Under The Copyright Act, 1957 By Law Wire Team August 23, 2023 0 The rights connected to intangible property that is owned by a person or business and is prohibited from being used without permission are known as Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs).

  20. Copyright Law in India

    The future of copyright in India: The copyright laws in India are set to be amended with the introduction of the provisions for anti-circumvention and Rights Management Information in the Indian copyright regime although India is under no obligation to introduce these changes as it is not a signatory to WCT or WPPT.

  21. Latest Copyright Cases in 2022

    Latest Copyright Cases in 2022 - Part 1 January 22, 2022 BananaIP Reporter Case Study, Copyrights, Intellectual Property 0 Comment This running post provides a summary of the latest Copyright cases decided by courts in India in 2022: Samir Kasal v. Prashant Mehta & Ors.

  22. Copy right(a case study)

    copyright act with case study Rajveer Choudhary Copyright ppt 1 PROF. PUTTU GURU PRASAD Copyright act Naveen Sihag Copyright Libin Kurian Copyright presentation valliappan1991 Infringement of Copyright (Case Laws) shlishadevadiga Copy right (a case study) - Download as a PDF or view online for free

  23. Patent infringement cases in India

    Patent infringement is the violation of the exclusive rights of the patent holder. The Indian Patents Act 1970, ("Patents Act") does not specifically define activities or situations that constitute patent infringement. Section 48 of the Patents Act gives the patent holder/ patentee an 'exclusive right' to exclude any third- party from ...