Copyright In Artwork Subsists Till Death Of Author & 60 Yrs Thereafter: Gujarat High Court Grants Interim Injunction In Infringement Suit
The Gujarat High Court has held that as per Section 22 of the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright would subsist in the life time of the author and until 60 years from the beginning of calendar year next following the year in which the author dies.Thus, in a suit pertaining to infringement of artwork, Justice AP Thaker observed that it cannot be said that the copyright of the Plaintiff had come to...
The Gujarat High Court has held that as per Section 22 of the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright would subsist in the life time of the author and until 60 years from the beginning of calendar year next following the year in which the author dies.
Thus, in a suit pertaining to infringement of artwork, Justice AP Thaker observed that it cannot be said that the copyright of the Plaintiff had come to an end on a particular date and that the actions of the Respondent reproducing the work under a different trade name cannot be injuncted. It observed,
"Copyright would not come to an end on a particular date, it will subsist till the death of the author and even 60 years thereafter. Therefore, admittedly the observations of the trial Court that copyright has expired in 2011 is legally not tenable."
The Court further noted that the Plaintiff had, in his pleadings, alleged adaptation by defendant, an ex-employee, and the same was not denied by the defendant in his filing written statement or affidavit, either before the trial court or the High Court. Thus, it was of the view:
"When the pleadings of the plaintiffs, which are based upon documentary evidence coupled with affirmation on affidavit are not challenged by other side, at interlocutory stage, such pleadings of the plaintiffs need to be accepted at least for the purpose of interlocutory order of injunction."
The Court was dealing with an appeal preferred by the original plaintiff against an order of trial court rejecting its application for interim relief of injunction.
The Plaintiff No. 1, a company registered under the Companies Act is engaged in the business of entertainment and is the exclusive owner of the Trademark 'Scary House' and its artistic/ literary/dramatic/ musical works.
Defendant No. 1, a former employee of the Plaintiff, was accused of having reproduced substantially 'Scary House' under a new title 'Terrific Devil Zone.'
The Plaintiff argued that the work of the Defendant was fraudulent in nature and reproduced with a mala fide intention to infringe trademark and encash upon the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff's work. The work was 'highly identical' and 'deceptively similar', as well. Therefore, the Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and injunction to restrain the Defendant from committing an infringement of copyright and diluting the trademark by sharing trade secrets and confidential information with third parties or for personal gain.
Per the Plaintiff, the trial court had not properly appreciated Section 22 of the Copyright Act. Further, the Defendant No. 1 was also a former employee of the Plaintiff and had the knowledge of the artistic work of the Plaintiff, which he used deceptively for his personal gain. It was submitted, "when the copyright and trademarks are duly registered, the registered owner has every right to protect it against anybody adopting it in any way in the country."
The High Court before venturing into the merits of the appeal stated that in an appeal against exercise of discretion by the Court of first instance, the power of the Appellate Court to interfere with such discretion is restricted. However, in the instant case, the trial court's observation that the copyright had come to an end on 2011 was violative of Sec 22 of the Copyright Act.
Further, referring to the term 'adaptation' in Sec 2(4) of the Act, the High Court concluded that there were several documentary evidence coupled with affirmation on affidavit which were not challenged by the Defendants at the interlocutory stage and therefore, the trial court ought to have accepted them for the purpose of the interlocutory order of injunctive relief. The High Court also remarked:
"Thus, the entire approach of the trial Court in deciding interim injunction application and ultimately rejecting it is arbitrary one and against the provisions of the Copyright Act."
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the Bench struck down the impugned order of the trial court, allowed the interim application for injunction and directed that the suit be expedited because it was pending since 2015.
Case Title: CRAZY CONCEPTS AND MAZES PVT. LTD. & 1 other(s) v/s N. VENKTA YAYADRI RAO & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 214
Click Here To Read/Download Order