Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Mere registration of title with the film producers’ association does not create any statutory right in favour of the plaintiff to restrain defendants from using the title ‘LOOTERE’ for making of their web series.
“The applicant was seeking monopoly over matters in which ex-facie no copyright subsisted to begin with, like common themes, ideas, unoriginal/stocks/scenes-a-faire matters, and other aspects directly flowing from such elements.”
The Adjudication Authority stated that the appellant’s activity of receiving income from transferring temporarily or permitting the use of the right vested in the film produced by them to their clients fell under the definition of copyright service under Section 65(105)(zzzt) of the Finance Act, 1994.
“Since Defendant 2 has perpetual right to use music and songs; he also has perpetual right to grant licence to others in respect of the said music and songs.”
The case pertains to alleged exploitation of PPL’s sound recording in the bars and restaurants owned by Azure Hospitality without taking any license from PPL.
The systematic, organised and intentional nature of the infringement, and the regularity and consistency with which the said content is being updated/ uploaded on the said “rogue websites” shows the extent of the violation of the rights of the plaintiff in real time.
Defendant 3 has taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff’s trade marks/artistic works and has also deceived the unwary consumers of their association with the plaintiff by dishonestly adopting the plaintiff’s registered marks/labels without any plausible explanation.
The act of the defendants of playing the sound recordings in their restaurants/bars, for which the plaintiff holds the copyright would, on a prima facie view, amount to infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright in terms of Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Plaintiffs submitted that being the ex-franchisee, Defendant 1 was clearly aware of the ownership and notoriety of the ‘MOTI MAHAL’, ‘MOTI MAHAL DELUX TANDOORI TRAIL’, ‘TANDOORI TRAIL’ and their formative marks as well as the goodwill and reputation enjoyed by the plaintiffs related to the said trade marks.
The circular dated 30-01-2024 issued by the State of Goa, does much more than just informing the public of the provision of Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and interfered with the enforcement mechanism provided in the Act for exercise or enforcing rights of copyright societies under the Act.
“Forbearance from granting such relief would enable the defendants to continue exploiting the plaintiff’s copyright, which would result in irreparable prejudice to the plaintiff.”
“If the defendants are not blocked from disseminating the copyrighted material of the plaintiff, the plaintiff would suffer enormous monetary loss apart from loss of subscribers and of goodwill.”
Microsoft filed the present suit for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from directly or indirectly reproducing/storing/installing and/or using pirated/unlicensed software programmes, thereby infringing the copyright in the plaintiffs’ computer programmes/software titles.
Delhi High Court: In a case where application was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section