Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. CHANDURKAR, RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
Ranjan Vasudeo Kolambe - Appellant
Versus
Appa Alias Hanmant Maroti Hatnure And Another - Respondents
COMMERCIAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 14 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11266 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 14 OF 2024
Decided on : 25-10-2024
For the Appellant : Mr. Yateen Kochare a/w. Mr. M. V. Thorat, Mr. Atmaram Patade
For the Respondent: Mr. Abhijeet A. Desai a/w. Mr. Vijay Singh, Mr. Karan Gajra, Smt. Daksha Punghera, Ms. Mohini Rehpade, Mr. Digvijay Kachare, Ms. Sanchita Sontakke i/b. Desai Legal
Originality is essential for copyright protection; works based on public domain information do not qualify for such protection.
Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 13 - Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 13, 38, 51 - Infringement of copyright - Plaintiff alleged that defendants copied content from his books and sought injunction - District Court dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding no prima facie case for copyright infringement - The plaintiff's works were not shown to be original or deserving of copyright protection, as they were based on public domain information. (Paras 11, 12, 43)
(B) Copyright - Originality - The court emphasized that originality is crucial for copyright protection, and works based on public domain information do not qualify for such protection. (Paras 11, 15)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a coaching class owner, claimed that the defendants, former students, copied his books and published their own with minor changes. The plaintiff sought an injunction against the defendants' books, which were published later. (Paras 3, 4, 6)
Findings of Court:
The District Judge found that the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case for copyright infringement, nor did he demonstrate that the balance of convenience favored him. (Paras 11, 12)
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff's works were original and whether the defendants' works constituted copyright infringement. (Paras 11, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove originality in his works, which were based on public domain information, and thus the defendants' works did not infringe copyright. (Paras 11, 12, 43)
Result: The Commercial Appeal From Order stands dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(PER : Rajesh S. Patil, J.)
1. This Commercial Appeal From Order is filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short ‘the said Act’) by the appellant (original plaintiff), challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 15th June 2024 passed by the District Judge, Pune on application (Exhibit 5) in Commercial Suit No.13 of 2024, thereby dismissing the application (Exhibit 5).
FACTS
2. The parties are hereinafter referred for convenience as per their nomenclature before the District Court in Commercial Suit.
3. The plaintiff filed Civil Suit for a declaration and injunction for infringement of copyrights under Section 55 of the Copyrights Act and under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, against the defendant no.1 and 2, who according to the plaintiffs have copied the entire material of plaintiff’s two books viz. “ Hkkjrh; vFkZO;oLFkk ” and “ Hkkjrh; jkT;?kVuk iz’kklu ” written in Marathi language (for short “the said two books”).
4. It is plaintiff's case in plaint that the set two books were written by the plaintiffs and these books are published by Bhagyarathi Prakashan owned by Mrs. Poonam Ranjan Kolambe who is the wife of the plaintiff. It is also the plaintiff’s case that he is into the business of coaching classes, preparing students for competitive examinations and he is running the tuition classes in the name and style of “Bhagyarati Spardha Pariksha Kendra” and “Bhagyarathi IAS Academy”. It is case of the plaintiff that last 20 years he has extensively studied and researched various subjects like Indian Economy, Indian Polity, Environmental Studies, Indian History, Science and Technology and others along with current affairs related to them, for which he is well known personality in this field across the state of Maharashtra. On the basis of this extensive work, the plaintiff has prepared his own books regarding the subject which are used by thousands of students across Maharashtra. And after the study, the plaintiff himself is preparing syllabus book either in his own handwriting and typing in his own computer and the contents of the said syllabus are not available in the market. It is also not available on public domain. According to the plaintiff, the defendant nos.1 and 2 were the students of the plaintiff’s institution around the year 2012. However, the defendant nos.1 and 2 failed in the preliminary examination consequently for many years. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 used to visit the office of the plaintiff from time to time seeking guidance. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 acquired the faith of the plaintiff and they also took parts in some of the functions and educational programs of the plaintiff’s institution. During the said period the defendant nos.1 and 2 got information about the business transaction and strategies of the plaintiff. They were also in possession of various notes/articles prepared by the plaintiff. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 being the ex- student of the plaintiff institution also participated in the various programs and lectures arranged by the plaintiff, and they were aware about all the notes/articles and the said two books written by the plaintiff.
5. In the first week of November 2023, the plaintiff through some students realised that the defendant no. 1 has written books in the name of “Class Notes Bhartiya Arthvyavastha” and “Class Notes Rajyaghatna”. The plaintiff also realized that the said two books were published by the defendant no.2 through “Lokseva Publication”. The plaintiff, hence purchased the said two books from defendant no.2 and after perusal of the said two books, the plaintiff got knowledge that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 in collusion with each other have almost copied the contents of the said two books written by the plaintiff and by making some minor changes, have prepared the said books by using the words “Class Notes” as suffix. Moreover, these books of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 have also been sold online through application in the name of
