INTRODUCTION
Copyright refers to the right to the unrestricted expression of ideas through works of literature, music, theatre, art, film, sound recordings, and computer software.[1] Copyrights act as a protector of the original works of a person that are published in any physical medium or form. Copyright infringement occurs when a person uses copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder. This can take many forms, such as reproducing, distributing, or performing the work without consent.[2]
The following paragraph briefly uncovers some of the most famous copyright cases in India:
Ratna Sagar (P) Ltd. V. Trisea Publications & Ors.[3]
“Copyright protection extends to original works, even those based on common sources, the originality in the presentation and expression of the material, rather than the underlying ideas or concepts, is what is protected by copyright law.”[4]
In the present case, the focus was on ensuring copyright protection under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908[5]. The facts of the case involved Ratna Sagar, the plaintiff, a leading publisher of educational books, who claimed copyright ownership in its “LIVING SCIENCE” series. Trisea Publications, the defendant herein, on the other hand, published similar series titled “UNIQUE SCIENCE”. The plaintiff thereafter, alleged that Trisea’s series was a direct and complete copy of its original work, infringing upon its copyright. Trisea argued that both series were based on shared sources, specifically scientific knowledge and concepts. The Delhi High Court, in this case, ruled that Ratna Sagar, had established a prima facie case of copyright infringement. The court found that the similarities between the two were substantial and went beyond mere commonalities in the subject matter. The court reasoned that ““No doubt the ideas for books both of the plaintiff and the defendants would come from nature but what we are concerned here is, how the things existing in nature were presented by the plaintiff and the defendants. The idea of the configuration of the ideas into the picture and words would form the fulcrum of the work done by any person.”[6]
Sarla A. Saraogi & Ors Vs. Krishna Kishore Singh[7]
The New Delhi High Court refused to issue an interlocutory order to halt the distribution and broadcast of films related to Sushant Singh Rajput (SSR), as his parents failed to provide prima facie evidence of copyright infringement. The plaintiffs claimed the films “NYAY The Law,” “Suicide or Death,” and “Roughly in the Middle” violated SSR’s publicity, security, and due process rights, as well as his constitutional right under Article 21. However, the Court found no valid claim for copyright infringement, as the plaintiffs did not prove the films used SSR’s likeness or title, and the films had proper disclaimers. It also noted that posthumous publicity rights might not persist after a celebrity’s death, and news or film coverage did not violate the right to a fair trial. The Court prioritized freedom of speech and expression over Article 21[8] in matters related to the public domain. The plaintiffs were asked to provide accounts for potential losses.
Shalini Kalra & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Limited[9]
Muthoot Finance Limited, a non-banking financial institution offering commercial and personal loans in exchange for gold jewelry, filed a lawsuit to protect its confidential client data, which constituted a “work of literature” under Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The complainant’s former employees (Respondents 1-4) were accused of unlawfully copying and transferring sensitive client data to Defendant 5, a competitor. As a result, the complainant lost clients and suffered financial losses amounting to approximately 9 crore rupees. The complainant filed an FIR under the IPC and the IT Act, alleging that Defendant 5 had recruited the complainant’s staff and clients using the stolen information. The complainant sought an injunction to prevent the use or disclosure of sensitive information, including any intellectual property rights, and demanded damages of ₹2,00,01,000 with interest.
The Court summoned the defendants and granted interim relief, prohibiting them from using or disclosing the complainant’s sensitive information and intellectual property or engaging in any actions that could harm the complainant’s interests.
Eastern Book Company & Others V. D.B. Modak & Another[10]
Eastern Book Company (EBC), publisher of Supreme Court Cases (SCC) since 1969, accused Spectrum and Regent of copying their compilation of Supreme Court judgments onto CD-ROMs. The accused companies argued that the work lacked creativity and thus wasn’t eligible for copyright protection. Initially, the lower courts sided with the defendants, but the Supreme Court disagreed. The Court ruled that despite the work not being highly creative, it required significant skill and effort to compile and organize, warranting copyright protection. The Court emphasized that the effort and skill involved in compiling and presenting legal information could make the work eligible for copyright protection.Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Eastern Book Company, affirming that their work was indeed protected by copyright law. The Court held that Spectrum and Regent had infringed on EBC’s copyright and ordered appropriate remedies.
This case highlights the importance of recognizing the intellectual property rights of compilations and databases, even when the underlying content is not inherently creative but involves significant effort and skill in presentation and organization.
Sajeev Pillai v. VenuKunnapalli & Anr[11]
Sajeev Pillai, a film director and scriptwriter, created a script based on the historical festival Mamankam and signed an MoU with Kavya Film Company for its production. However, after two shooting schedules, Pillai was replaced as the director. He alleged that the script was altered without his consent, which led him to file a civil suit seeking various reliefs, including an interim injunction to prevent the film’s release without proper authorship credit. The District Judge initially denied the injunction, which led Pillai to appeal to the Kerala High Court. The court acknowledged Pillai’s rights under Section 57(1) of the Copyright Act, which protects an author’s right to prevent modifications or distortions of their work. The ruling emphasized that an author’s copyright assignment does not exhaust their right to claim authorship. Consequently, the court granted an interim injunction, restraining the respondents from releasing, publishing, distributing, or exploiting Mamangam without proper credit to Pillai, as per industry standards. The main point in the case is that despite the transfer or sale of a copyrighted work (Mural) from the creator to another person, all the rights of the creator do not get extinguished. The creator still retains his/her moral rights that can be enforced when the need be.[12]
Conclusion
Hence, in conclusion, intellectual property laws, including trademark and copyright protection, are crucial to safeguarding the rights of creators, innovators, and businesses in India. The discussed aforementioned copyright cases in India, illustrate the importance of maintaining originality of creative works in copyright. The precedents reflect the need for a balanced legal framework that not only protects the commercial interests of businesses but also recognizes the creative efforts of individuals. These landmark cases contribute to the evolving landscape of intellectual property law in India, reinforcing the significance of protecting creativity, innovation, and business interests in a rapidly globalizing economy.
Name: Ishita Goel, Pursuing 3rd Year BCom LLB (Hons), Jindal Global Law School
Wish to read similar articles? Click the link to read more: https://jpassociates.co.in/10-most-famous-trademark-cases-in-india/
Link to IPindia’s official page: https://www.ipindia.gov.in
[1] Anshika Srivastava, ‘METAVERSE AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS’, 3.3 JCLJ 195, 198 (2023).
[2] https://bytescare.com/blog/copyright-infringement-cases-in-india
[3] Ratna Sagar (P) Ltd. V. Trisea Publications & Ors.,1996 Ptc (16) 597
[4] Ibid
[6] Ibid, para 18
[7] Sarla A. Saraogi & Ors Vs. Krishna Kishore Singh, CS(COMM) 187/2021
[8] INDIA CONST. art. 21.
[9] Shalini Kalra & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Limited, CS(COMM) 431/2021
[10] Eastern Book Company & Others V. D.B. Modak & Another, Air 2008 Sc 809
[11] Sajeev Pillai v. VenuKunnapalli & Anr, 2019 SCC Online Ker 5338
[12] By Roopa Dayal, ‘An author has the legal right to protect his intellectual property even after he has sold his authorship’ https://www.opkhaitan.com/an-author-has-the-legal-right-to-protect-his-intellectual-property-even-after-he-has-sold-his-authorship/.
