Case Note & Summary
The plaintiffs, Pranda Jewelry Pvt. Ltd. and others, filed a suit for copyright infringement and passing off against Aarya 24 kt and others, alleging that the defendants copied 22 product drawings of deities and religious symbols used in gold sheet articles. The plaintiffs claimed ownership of the artistic works created by their graphic designers. The defendants argued that the works were generic and common to trade, and that there was no assignment of copyright. The court, after hearing submissions, held that the works lacked originality as they were generic depictions of well-known religious figures and symbols. The court also noted that the plaintiffs failed to prove assignment of copyright from the designers. Additionally, there was a delay of over one year in filing the notice of motion, which disentitled the plaintiffs to interim relief. The court dismissed the notice of motion, finding no prima facie case for copyright infringement or passing off.
Headnote
A) Copyright Law - Originality - Artistic Work - Section 2(c) Copyright Act, 1957 - The plaintiffs claimed copyright in drawings of deities and religious symbols used in gold sheet articles. The court held that the works were not original as they were generic and common to the trade, and thus no copyright subsisted. (Paras 3-4)
B) Copyright Law - Ownership - Assignment - Section 19 Copyright Act, 1957 - The plaintiffs failed to prove assignment of copyright from the alleged designers. The court noted absence of evidence of assignment. (Para 4)
C) Interim Relief - Delay - Laches - The plaintiffs learnt of infringement in August 2010 but filed the notice of motion in 2012, causing delay disentitling them to interim relief. (Para 3)
D) Passing Off - Generic Goods - The court found no case of passing off as the articles were generic and not distinctive of the plaintiffs. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interim injunction in a suit for copyright infringement and passing off in respect of artistic works depicting deities and religious symbols, considering the originality of the works and delay in filing the motion.
Final Decision
Notice of Motion dismissed. No interim relief granted.
Law Points
- Copyright Act
- 1957
- Section 2(c) artistic work
- originality requirement
- generic works
- passing off
- delay in filing interim application
Case Details
Notice of Motion No. 2235 of 2012 in Suit No. 2477 of 2011
Mr Iqbal Chagla Sr. Counsel a/w Naval Agarwal, Solicitor, Mr Rajesh Satpalkar, Mr Pinkesh Shah and Ms Madhuri Roa i/b Mulla & Mulla Craigie Blunt & Caroe for the Plaintiff. Mr H.W.Kane, Sr. Advocate with Mr Aniruddha Sathe, Mr Hiren Kamod and Ms Aditi Kulkarni i/b Aniruddha Satge for the Defendants.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Copyright infringement and passing off suit
Remedy Sought
Interim injunction restraining defendants from infringing plaintiffs' copyright in 22 product drawings and passing off their goods as those of plaintiffs
Filing Reason
Alleged copying of plaintiffs' artistic works depicting deities and religious symbols by defendants
Issues
Whether the plaintiffs' artistic works are original and entitled to copyright protection
Whether the plaintiffs have proved ownership/assignment of copyright
Whether there is a case of passing off
Whether delay in filing the notice of motion disentitles plaintiffs to interim relief
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiffs: The drawings are original artistic works; defendants copied them; plaintiffs are owners.
Defendants: Works are generic and common to trade; no assignment of copyright; delay in filing motion; no passing off.
Ratio Decidendi
Artistic works that are generic and common to trade, lacking originality, are not entitled to copyright protection. Delay in seeking interim relief can disentitle a party to such relief.
Judgment Excerpts
If one has regard to their respective brochures and also the respective articles produced by the Plaintiffs and Defendants, it is quite clear that the Defendants' articles are a clear imitation of the Plaintiffs' articles.
The main contest between the parties is, however, on whether or not the Plaintiffs can claim any copyright in the matter.
The Defendants submit that the articles, in which the Plaintiffs seek to illegally claim a monopoly, are being manufactured and sold both in India and worldwide by various parties; these articles are manufactured by others in the same forms of expression and depiction; these figures and signs are well known and are generic.
Procedural History
Suit No. 2477 of 2011 filed for copyright infringement and passing off. Notice of Motion No. 2235 of 2012 taken out for interim relief. Order reserved on 18 December 2014 and pronounced on 1 April 2015.
Acts & Sections
- Copyright Act, 1957: 2(c), 19
