A copyright is infringed if an act or omission results in the violations of the rights of the copyright holder. For an infringement the copyright holder has various remedies under the Copyright Act, 1957. A copyright owner cannot enjoy his rights unless infringement of the same is stringently dealt with by the Courts .The approach of the Indian Judiciary in this regard is very satisfactory.

In Prakashak Puneet Prashant Prakashan v Distt.judge, Bulandshahr &Ashok Prakashan (Regd) the Allahabad High Court held that if the petitioner publishes a book by adding any word before or after the book “Bal Bharati”, he infringes the copyright of the respondent.

In Hindustan Pencils Ltd v Alpna Cottage Industries the Copyright Board of Goa held that where the similarities between the artistic works of the parties are fundamental and substantial in material aspects, it would amount to copyright violation and the defendant’s copyright is liable to be expunged from the register of copyright.
The Board referred the decision of Prem Singh v Cec Industries wherein it was observed:
“ In a case where the first party himself is shown to have adopted or imitated a trademark and copyright of a third party, then Courts can resolutely decline to step in aid of this party because honesty of action is the crux of the matter and Courts protection is extended only on the principle that damage to a party who has acquired goodwill or reputation in certain trading style for making his goods, should not be allowed to be affected by the dishonest user of the same by another”.
The Board further referred the decision of the apex court in R.G. Anand v M/S Delux Films where the Court observed:
“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 with some variations here and here. 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 the act of piracy”.

In Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd v T.V. Venugopal the division bench of the Andhara Pradesh High Court held that even though the defendant has registered the carton under the Trademark Act, that may not come to the aid of the defendant as the case of the plaintiff is that it owns a copyright of the artistic work under the Copyright Act and no registration is required for the same. Thus the court held that the plaintiff was justified in alleging infringement of his artistic work.

In Khajanchi Film Exchange v State of MP the appellants apprehending the violation of their copyright in the film, prayed for the writ of “Mandamus” without first exhausting the alternative remedy available under the Copyright Act. The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Observed:
“ There is no dispute in the submission that it is the duty of police to be watchful in the area and detect crime and punish the criminal in accordance with law. But the petitioners did not complain that any stage nor did they seek action from other functionaries of the State. They ask for mandamus without putting the grievance before the respondent and seeking their reaction. The writ petition was filed 16 days before the release of the film. Enough time appellants had, to approach the authorities/ police and later to the respondents giving their reaction to the grievance and how it was ready to deal with the matter. Therefore, unless the demand was put across and reaction awaited for some time, moving the court was premature and unsustainable. Therefore, petition was filed on mere apprehension that appellants would be deprived of their rights which did not exist when claim for mandamus was made. Mandamus can be granted only when default, commission, or omission takes place which had not happened in this case”.

In Jolen Inc v Shoban Lal Jain the Madras High Court held that latches and acquiescence is a good defence to an action for copyright infringement. The court held that the plaintiff having allowed the defendant to carry on the business under the trade name of the plaintiff for 7 years is prima facie guilty of acquiescence and it cannot claim for relief of injunction against the defendant as the balance of convenience is in favour of him.

END OF PART VII
TO BE CONTINUED

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITH THE AUTHOR.