{"id":200799,"date":"2018-08-28T21:11:14","date_gmt":"2018-08-28T15:41:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=200799"},"modified":"2018-08-30T13:40:57","modified_gmt":"2018-08-30T08:10:57","slug":"copyright-registration-over-industrial-drawings-entitles-the-applicant-to-the-machine-reproduced-by-copying-thereof","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/28\/copyright-registration-over-industrial-drawings-entitles-the-applicant-to-the-machine-reproduced-by-copying-thereof\/","title":{"rendered":"Owner of Industrial Drawings under Copyright Act held entitled to the machine reproduced by copying thereof"},"content":{"rendered":"

“If a creative person steals your idea, he\u2019s killing his creative ability, if he steals your art, he\u2019s killing his art, if he makes it available to the world, it won\u2019t create the impact you could have created, because it wasn\u2019t from the right source.\u201d \u2013<\/em><\/strong> Michael Bassey Johnson<\/strong><\/p>\n

Gujarat High Court:<\/strong> A Single Judge Bench comprising of J.B. Pardiwala, J., while addressing an application in regard to violation of copyright of the applicant\u2019s industrial design drawings being reproduced in three-dimensional material form by the respondent, the Court directed for handing over of the machine to the applicant who is entitled to the possession of the same.<\/p>\n

The facts of the case deal with some very pertinent issues in regard to the copyright infringement. The applicant is the owner of the copyright in the artistic work of industrial drawings and he has alleged that his drawings have been stolen by accused 1 by reproduction of the same in three-dimensional material in the form of a machine, \u00a0which was set up in the factory premises of Respondent 2 and 3. Further, an FIR was lodged by the applicant in this regard and after intensive investigation by the police officers and on being satisfied of the copyright violation under Section 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957, machine was seized by them. However, the CJM rejected the applicant\u2019s applications and allowed accused\u2019s applications. The applicant being\u00a0aggrieved from all the orders of the lower courts filed the applications in the High Court.<\/p>\n

The contentions placed by the applicant\u2019s counsel were that,<\/p>\n