Supreme court of India has decided following Copyright Cases in India since its establishment in 1950.
M/S Paragon Rubber Industries Vs. M/S Pragati Rubber Mills & Ors.
Date: November 29, 2013
Held: Judgment of the High Court on the Territorial jurisdiction issue under Copyright Act, 1957 was affirmed.
M/S Young Achievers Vs. Ims Learning Resources Pvt.Ltd.
Date: August 22, 2013
Held: “An arbitration clause in an agreement cannot survive if the agreement containing arbitration clause has been superseded/novated by a later agreement.”
Inst.Of Chartered Accountants Of India Vs. Shaunak H Sayta & Ors.
Date: September 2, 2011
Held: “The term `intellectual property’ refers to a category of intangible rights protecting commercially valuable products of human intellect comprising primarily trade mark, copyright and patent right, as also trade secret rights, publicity rights, moral rights and rights against unfair competition (vide Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, page 813). Question papers, instructions regarding evaluation and solutions to questions (or model answers) which are furnished to examiners and moderators in connection with evaluation of answer scripts, are literary works which are products of human intellect and therefore subject to a copyright. The paper setters and authors thereof (other than employees of ICAI), who are the first owners thereof are required to assign their copyright in regard to the question papers/solutions in favour of ICAI. “..“The words `infringement of copyright’ have a specific connotation. Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides when a copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed. Section 52 of the Act enumerates the acts which are not infringement of a copyright. A combined reading of sections 51 and 52(1)(a) of Copyright Act shows that furnishing of information by an examining body, in response to a query under the RTI Act may not be termed as an infringement of copyright”
Central Board Of Sec. Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.
Date: August 9, 2011
Held: “Section 9 provides that without prejudice to the provisions of section 8, a request for information may be rejected if such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright. …If any request for providing access to information involves an infringement of a copyright subsisting in a person other than the State, the Central/State Public Information Officer may reject the request under section 9 of RTI Act…The examining bodies (Universities, Examination Boards, CBSC etc.) are neither security nor intelligence organisations and therefore the exemption under section 24 will not apply to them. The disclosure of information with reference to answer-books does not also involve infringement of any copyright and therefore section 9 will not apply.”
T.V. Venogopal Vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. & Anr.
Date: March 3, 2011
Held: In cases of infringement either of trade mark or of copyright, normally an injunction must follow. Mere delay in bringing action is not sufficient to defeat grant of injunction in such cases. The grant of injunction also becomes necessary if it prima facie appears that the adoption of the mark was itself dishonest.
Academy Of General Edu.,Manipal & Anr. Vs. B.Malini Mallya
Date: January 23, 2009
Held: Keeping in view the statutory provisions, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that copyright in respect of performance of `dance’ would not come within the purview of the literary work but would come within the purview of the definition of `dramatic work’..Section 52 of the Act provides for certain acts which would not constitute an infringement of copyright. When a fair dealing is made, inter alia, of a literary or dramatic work for the purpose of private use including research and criticism or review, whether of that work or of any other work, the right in terms of the provisions of the said Act cannot be claimed. Thus, if some performance or dance is carried out within the purview of the said clause, the order of injunction shall not be applicable. Similarly, appellant being an educational institution, if the dance is performed within the meaning of provisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the Act strictly, the order of injunction shall not apply thereto also. Yet again, if such performance is conducted before a non-paying audience by the appellant, which is an institution if it comes within the purview of amateur club or society, the same would not constitute any violation of the said order of injunction.
Dabur India Ltd. Vs. K.R. Industries
Date: May 16, 2008
Held: The said carton constituted an `artistic work’ within the meaning of Section 25-C of the Copyright Act, 1957 (the 1957 Act). Respondent is said to have been using an identical colour scheme lay out, arrangement of features and get up as that of the plaintiffs, the essential features.
M/S. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. Vs. M/S. Super Cassettee Industries Ltd.
Date: May 16, 2008
Held: An owner of a copyright indisputably has a right akin to the right of property. It is also a human right. Now, human rights have started gaining a multifaceted approach. Property rights vis-`-vis individuals are also incorporated within the `multiversity’ of human rights
Bharat Glass Tube Limited Vs. Gopal Glass Works Limited
Date: May 1, 2008
Held: The primary concern, is what the finished article is to look like and not with what it does and the monopoly provided for the proprietor is effected by according not, as in the case of ordinary copyright, a right to prevent direct reproduction of the image registered as the design but the right, over a much more limited period, to prevent the manufacture and sale of article of a design not substantially different from the registered design. The emphasis therefore is upon the visual image conveyed by the manufactured article.
Eastern Book Company & Ors. Vs. D.B. Modak & Anr.
Date: December 12, 2007
Held: The act of reproduction of any judgment or order of the Court, Tribunal or any other judicial authority under Section 52(1)(q) of the Act, is not an infringement of the copyright. Any person can, therefore, publish judgments of the Courts. The appellants may have happened to have first published the judgments, but the same will not mean that they can have a copyright therein. It is the considered opinion of the Division Bench that no person can claim copyright in the text of the judgment by merely putting certain inputs to make it user friendly. The appellants cannot claim copyright in the judgment of the Court. … For the reasons stated in the aforesaid discussion, the appeals are partly allowed. The High Court has already granted interim relief to the plaintiff-appellants by directing that though the respondent-defendants shall be entitled to sell their CD-ROMS with the text of the judgments of the Supreme Court along with their own head notes, editorial notes, if any, they should not in any way copy the head notes of the plaintiff-appellants; and that the defendant-respondents shall also not copy the footnotes and editorial notes appearing in the journal of the plaintiff-appellants. It is further directed by us that the defendant-respondents shall not use the paragraphs made by the appellants in their copy-edited version for internal references and their editors judgment regarding the opinions expressed by the Judges by using phrases like `concurring, `partly dissenting, etc. on the basis of reported judgments in SCC. The judgment of the High Court is modified to the extent that in addition to the interim relief already granted by the High Court, we have granted the above-mentioned additional relief to the appellants.
M/S. Dhodha House Vs. S.K. Maingi
Date: December 15, 2005
Held: The expression ‘carries on business’ and the expression ‘personally works for gain’ connotes two different meanings. For the purpose of carrying on business only presence of a man at a place is not necessary. Such business may be carried at a place through an agent or a manager or through a servant. The owner may not event visit that place. The phrase ‘carries on business” at a certain place would, therefore, mean having an interest in a business at that place, a voice in what is done, a share in the gain or loss and some control thereover. The expression is much wider than what the expression in normal parlance connotes, because of the ambit of a civil action within the meaning of section 9 of the Code.
State Of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Nagoti Venkataramana
Date: August 20, 1996
Held: Section 2 [m] (ii) defined “infringing copy” to mean, in relation to cinematographic film, a copy of the film made on any medium by any means. Section 3 defines “publication” to mean making a work available to the public by issue of copies or by communicating the work to the public. Section 4 envisages when work is not deemed to be published or performed in public. It provides that except in relation to infringement of copyright, a work shall not be deemed to be published or performed in public, without the license of the owner of the copyright. The permission of the owner for publication is mandatory when it sought to be brought home to the person violating the publication or performed in public. It excludes the application of infringement of a copyright from the purview of Section 4 Chapter x deals with registration of copyright. Section 44 envisages that there shall be kept at the Copyright Office a register in the prescribed form to be called the Register of Copyrights in which may be entered the names or title of works and the names and addresses of authors, publishers and owners of copyright and such other particulars as may be prescribed. The entries under Section 48 in the register of copyrights shall be prima facie evidence of the particulars entered therein, or extracts therefrom certified by the Registrar of Copyrights and sealed with the seal of the Copyright Office shall be admissible in evidence in all courts without further proof or production of the original Section 51 in Chapter XI deals with infringement of copyrights. It provides, among other things, that a copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed when any other person makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire any infringing copies of the work. Section 52-A deals with particulars to be included in sound recordings and video films.
The South Indian Film Chamber Of Commerce, Madras Etc. Vs. Entertaining Enterprises, Madras And Ors. Etc.
Date: December 16, 1994
Held: We are of the opinion, as rightly contended for on behalf of the appellants before us that the fact the provisions in the Act make the non-possessing of the letter of consent from the holder of copyright of the film or assignee thereof for doing business in such films makes it a cognizable offence or an offence punishable, can be no ground for holding that the State Legislature in requiring the keeping of a consent letter from the copyright holder or his assignee for doing business in the film which is necessary for carrying on the such business lawfully can be said to make the State Legislature to lose the legislative competence which it had on the subject of ‘cinema’ in List-II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
Gramophone Company Of India Ltd. Vs. Birendra Bahadur Pandey & Ors.
Date: February 21, 1984
Held: The question is what does the word import’ mean in Sec. 53 of the Copyright Act ? The word is not defined in the Copyright Act though it is defined in the Customs Act. The submission that where goods are brought into the country not for commerce, but for onward transmission to another country, there can, in law, be no importation, is not acceptable. We have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the word ‘import’ in Secs. 51 and 53 of the Copyright Act means ‘bringing into India from outside India’, that it is not limited to importation for commerce only but includes importation for transit acrossthe country. Our interpretation, far from being inconsistent with any principle of International law, is entirely in accord with International Conventions and the Treaties between India and Nepal. And, that we think is as it should be. The Registrar is nor bound to make an order under Sec. 53 of the Copyright Act so soon as an application is presented to him by the owner of the Copyright. He has naturally to consider the context of the mischief sought to be prevented. He must consider whether the copies would infringe the Copyright if the copies were made in India. He must consider whether the applicant owns the Copyright or is the duly authorised agent of the Copyright. He must hear these claiming to be affected if an order is made and consider any contention that may be put forward as an excuse for the import. He may consider any other relevant circumstance.
R.G Anand Vs. M/S. Delux Films & Ors.
Date: August 18, 1978
Held: Infringement of a copyright in a play in a film-What are the tests-Whether copyright can be claimed in a theme.There can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts and violation of the copyright in such cases is confined to the form, manner and arrangement and expression of the idea by tile author of the copy-righted work. ..Where the same idea is being developed in a different manner, it is manifest that the source being common, similarities are bound to occur. In such a case the courts should determine whether or not the similarities are on fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression adopted in the copyrighted work. If the defendant’s work is nothing but a literal imitation of the copyrighted work with some variations here and there it would amount to violation of the copyright. In other words, in order to be actionable the copy must be a substantial and material one which at once leads to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty of an act of piracy. ..One of the surest and the safest test to determine whether or not there has been a violation of copyright is to see if the reader, spectator or the viewer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original. ..Where the theme is the same but is presented and treated differently so that the subsequent work becomes a completely new work, no question of violation of copyright arises. ..Where however apart from the similarities appearing in the two works there are also material and broad dissimilarities which negative the intention to copy the original and the coincidences appearing in the two words are clearly incidental no infringement of the copyright comes into existence. ..As a violation of copyright amounts to an act of piracy it must be proved By clear and cogent evidence after applying the various tests laid down by decided cases. ..Where however the question is of the violation of the copyright of a stage play by a film producer or a Director the task of the plaintiff becomes more difficult to prove piracy. It is manifest that unlike a stage play a film has a much broader prospective, wider field and a bigger background where the defendants can by introducing a variety of incidents give a colour and complexion different from the manner in which the copyrighted work has expressed the Idea. Even so, if the viewer after seeing the film gets a totality of impression that the film is by and large a copy of the original play, violation of the copyright may be said to be proved.