POPULAR LEGAL BATTLES AROUND COPYRIGHT IN INDIA
Copyright is a type of intellectual property protection which aims at safeguarding the original artwork or expression of the creator, but not the idea — for a limited period of time. However, Copyright is a tricky law and thus for better clarity, this blog brings to you some popular cases of copyright infringement of different properties
- Case: Brooke Bond India Limited vs Balaji Tea (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Madras High Court
Year: 1992
Brooke Bond (the plaintiff) filed a case against Balaji Tea (India) Pvt. Ltd, accusing them of violating the copyright of their carton design. The plaintiff’s Super Dust Tea has a color template of Red and Green and so did the defendant’s Super Star Tea. The former had the banner with a yellow circle while the latter’s banner had a star in yellow. The flowers below the banner of both the parties too were very similar. There were other very similar elements in both the designs and thus, Brooke Bond accused Balaji tea of copyright infringement, stating that the company is trying to profit on the plaintiff’s branding.
Copyright protection will be granted to the publisher of the work if the declaration about the real author is not made, in accordance with the presumption contained in Section 54(b) of the Indian Copyright Act. In the case, the court effectively pointed out that the legislative intent of Section 54(bb) was to provide protection to such works. If the presumption of the publisher being the copyright owner of an anonymous or pseudonymous work does not exist, then no civil remedy for copyright infringement would be provided to the publisher at all. In the decision given by Judge Mishra, the High Court said, instead, that there was no positive obligation on the publisher to disclose the real name of the author of the said work, and/or if no real name was available, then the publisher would be presumed to be the owner of the copyright by default. Thus, Brooke Bond’s application was dismissed by the High court of Madras.
2. Case: The University of Oxford Vs. Rameshwari Photocopy Services
Court: Delhi High Court
Year: 2017
In this landmark copyright violation case, the plaintiff, Oxford University filed a case against the Rameshwari Photocopy Services for operating commercially and making profits by photocopying the pages of books under their publication after Delhi School of Economics issued them under the course package.
In their defense, Rameshwari Photocopy Services that the work being done amounts to fair use under the Copyright Act and it did not affect the sales of the plaintiff’s books as only extracts recommended in the course package by Delhi University were replicated for educational and research purposes of students who couldn’t afford the books at nominal charges
The Delhi High court was looking into the case but ended in the plaintiff withdrawing the case after observing that the defendant has a legal license to operate in the premises of Delhi University. This case was a major example of fair use, as copyright is not meant to restrict knowledge.
3. Case: Saregama India Ltd. Vs. Viacom 18 Motion Pictures & ORS.
Court: Calcutta High Court
Year: 2013
The film ‘Special 26’ made it to the news when Saregama India (Plaintiff), who own the copyright of the music of the film Aradhana, filed a lawsuit of copyright infringement against Viacom 18 Motion Pictures for using the line ‘Mere Sapnon Ki Rani’ from the song of the 1969 movie. In the movie, the character played by Anupam Kher is seen singing the line from the song.
The Court in the judgement clearly mentioned that there was no violation of copyright as the song was sung for less than seven seconds in a different melody. Also, there was no originality in just the line ‘‘Mere Sapnon ki Rani…’ and it in no way could cause any harm/loss to the plaintiff. Thus, the case was dismissed by the Calcutta High Court.
4. Case: Hamdard National Foundation Vs. Hussain Dalal & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Year: 2013
Hamdard National foundation filed a lawsuit against the makers of the film ‘Yeh Jawani Hai Deewani’ and sued the writer for ‘infringement of trade mark, passing off, commercial disparagement and tarnishment of goodwill and damages’ of their brand ‘Roohafza’. In one particular scene of the film, the characters were seen having a conversation which went like,
Son: “Yeh Roohafza Bahut Bekaar Hai!”
Mother : “Sab Thik Ho Jayega!”
Son: “Siwaye Is Roohafza Ke…. Bahut Bura Hai”
Translating to ‘This Roohafza tastes so bad’.
The court in their judgement found the content objectionable against the brand and thus, while asking both the parties to settle the dispute, the court ordered Dharma (productions) to issue the apology the plaintiff was seeking. The makers also ended up removing the said scene from the film.
