7 judgments of the Madras High Court, the Delhi High Court and 2 other courts applying Copyright Act s.62, from 2023–2026, each with a headnote by BRB Legal.
Rival claims to first ownership of copyright in a feature film resolved in favour of the plaintiff: his suit decreed and the cross suit dismissed. Because no issues had been framed in the later suit, the Court recast common issues for both. On the contest over who produced the film, it held that a certificate of the Central Board of Film Certification naming another applicant and producer is strong evidence that the film was completed and was viewed by the examining committee, but is no more than prima facie evidence of who the producer is, and must be weighed with the rest of the evidence, the more so where the rival claimant holds a certificate for the same film under a different title. On the evidence, the plaintiff's contemporaneous handwritten shooting ledger, his agreements with the lead cast, music composer, dance master, cinematographer and lyricist, and the original bound script were decisive. The counter claimant's agreements had been executed by a partnership firm that was not in existence on their dates, he asserted that the bound script was in his possession but never produced it, and he led no evidence for his allegation that the plaintiff had misappropriated the ledger. The plaintiff was therefore the person who took the initiative and responsibility for making the film, which made him the producer under section 2(uu) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the first owner of copyright under section 17, so that the exclusive rights in section 14 accrued to him. The dates on which the rival suits were instituted were held not to be determinative.
Application to return the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction dismissed. The Court held that the defendant's platforms and websites are accessible throughout India including Delhi, so part of the cause of action arose there, and that section 20(c) of the Code accords dominus litis to the plaintiff to sue where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. It distinguished authorities arising from licence agreements on the footing that this suit alleged unauthorised exploitation of the plaintiff's repertoire and asserted no contractual right.
Suit for copyright infringement in tractor engineering drawings dismissed after trial, each party bearing its own costs. The Court held on the evidence that the drawings met the requirement of originality under the Copyright Act and that the plaintiff was entitled to be recognised as their author, and on that footing rejected the objection that the suit failed for non-joinder of the foreign parent. The suit nevertheless failed on the critical question of copying: the plaintiff did not establish that the defendant had copied its drawings, and the remedies claimed for copyright infringement therefore did not arise.
Suit decreed against ex parte defendants for unlicensed public performance of a copyright society's repertoire at live music events. The Court held that a copyright society registered with the Central Government is permitted under sections 18, 19 and 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957 to grant licences and collect royalty on behalf of its members, and that the evidence of the society's licensing executive and its investigator established that the songs performed at the event in question were published by its members. In the absence of any contrary evidence, the society was entitled to the injunctive relief claimed and to rendition of accounts with a decree of profits. The first defendant had agreed while the suit was pending to settle for Rs.20,00,000 with GST but paid only about Rs.9,90,000 and repeatedly violated undertakings given to the Court, so the plaintiff was directed to give credit for the amounts received and prosecute the suit on merits. On counsel's submission that the balance would be paid, the decree for rendition of accounts was made conditional: it comes into effect only if the outstanding amount is not paid by the stated date, and payment is to be treated as discharge of that obligation. Applications alleging wilful disobedience of interim injunctions were closed without separate orders because the permanent injunction and rendition of accounts were being granted in the judgment itself.
Appeal dismissed and the injunction restraining use of MUSA KA GUL SUPER confirmed. The district court had recorded cogent findings on all three ingredients, noting that the plaintiff's registration subsisted and that the appellants held no registered mark or copyright of their own. Inter se family arrangements by way of dissolution of partnership and assignment, made while a Calcutta High Court injunction remained operative until publication of the arbitral award, could not be used to defeat the registered proprietor's rights, Article 261 requiring full faith and credit to be given to that order. Registration is prima facie evidence of validity under section 31. The court below was not required to hold a mini trial, and questions of pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction could be left to be decided after issues were framed.
Revision allowed and the plaint directed to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation to a court having territorial jurisdiction. The suit was founded on passing off rather than infringement, neither the trade name nor the artistic work being registered in the plaintiff's name, so the plaintiff could not invoke section 134(a) and (b) of the Trade Marks Act or section 62 of the Copyright Act to sue where it carried on business. Jurisdiction was therefore governed by section 134(c) read with section 20 CPC, and the defendant resided and carried on business at Rajkot. The averments of a cause of action arising at Jaipur were bald and casual, and the Court described them as illusionary and made simply to invoke that forum. The trial court had wrongly assumed the plaintiff held a registration and had wrongly deferred the question to the evidence stage.
Appeal allowed, the temporary injunction set aside and the application remanded for fresh consideration. The District Judge had rested the injunction on the plaintiff's registration alone, with no discussion of prior user, of sections 31 and 34 of the Trade Marks Act, or of the defendant's documents, and only a cryptic treatment of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The Court held that while a mini trial is not justified at the injunction stage, that does not relieve the trial judge of the duty to analyse the ingredients. Order 41 Rules 23 to 27 CPC, including the powers of remand and to admit additional evidence, apply to appeals from orders through Order 43 Rule 2. The respondent's request that the injunction continue during the remand was refused: once the appeal is allowed setting the injunction aside, a contrary order on the same lines cannot be passed.
