SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Del) 1527

High Court Of Delhi
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY - Appellant
Versus
D.B.MODAK - Respondent
First Appeal (OS) 43 of 2001
Decided On : 09/27/2002

Advocates Appeared:
P.M.LEKHI, PRATIBHA M.SINGH, Ritika Anand, S.K.Mohanty, SAI KRISHAN, Saikrishna Raj Gopal, SANGITA GOEL, Sumit Malik, SUNIL GUPTA, TINA JAMES, VIVEK VISHNOI

Copyright can be claimed in head-notes, footnotes, and editorial comments prepared with labor, skill, and originality. Mere corrections and arrangements in the text of judgments do not confer copyright.

Headnote:

Copyright - Infringement of Copyright - Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 14, Section 16, Section 51, Section 52 - The court discussed the claim of copyright in the text of judgments, head-notes, footnotes, editorial comments, and long notes. It held that copyright can be claimed in head-notes, footnotes, and editorial comments prepared with labor, skill, and originality. However, mere corrections and arrangements in the text of judgments do not confer copyright. The court emphasized the importance of head-notes and the skill involved in their preparation. It also highlighted the differences between the appellant's and respondents' products, concluding that the relief of injunction was not warranted.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a publishing company, filed suits for copyright infringement against the respondents, who launched a software package reproducing Supreme Court judgments. The suits were founded on infringement of copyright and unfair competition. The appellant claimed copyright in the copy-editing of the judgment and other editorial works.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that copyright can be claimed in head-notes, footnotes, and editorial comments prepared with labor, skill, and originality. However, mere corrections and arrangements in the text of judgments do not confer copyright. The court emphasized the importance of head-notes and the skill involved in their preparation. It also highlighted the differences between the appellant's and respondents' products, concluding that the relief of injunction was not warranted.

Issues: The issues involved copyright infringement, labor, and skill in the preparation of head-notes, footnotes, and editorial comments, and the differences between the appellant's and respondents' products.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that copyright can be claimed in head-notes, footnotes, and editorial comments prepared with labor, skill, and originality. However, mere corrections and arrangements in the text of judgments do not confer copyright. The court emphasized the importance of head-notes and the skill involved in their preparation. It also highlighted the differences between the appellant's and respondents' products, concluding that the relief of injunction was not warranted.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the appeals, finding that the relief of injunction was not warranted. It also noted the differences between the appellant's and respondents' products, concluding that no useful purpose would be served in granting the relief of injunction as claimed by the appellant.

S. B. SINHA

( 1 ) EASTERN Book Company, a well known publishing concern had filed two suits bearing Nos. 624/2000 and 758/2000 before this Court for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyright, moral rights, unfair competition, damages etc against the respondents. The appellant is a publisher of a well-known journal known as Supreme Court Cases. It allegedly reports all reportable and unreportable judgments of the Supreme Court. In 1996, the second appellant introduced a data based package on CD-ROMs for finding out the Supreme Court rulings known as SCC-Online Case Finder. The respondents launched a software package entitled "the Laws" and "jurix". The said suits were founded, inter alia, on infringement of copyright and unfair competition. Copyright was claimed in the copy-editing of the judgment. According to the appellant, the respondent had copied the said notes and copied the text of the judgment as published in the SCC and thereby infringed its copyright.

( 2 ) VARIOUS interim applications were filed for injunction and interim orders of injunction was passed in the suits from time to time. However, the respondent filed applications for vacation of the stay order. The said IAs filed by the parties were taken up for hearing together and by reason of the impugned judgment dated 17. 1. 2001, a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the appellant s applications for injunction. However, before the learned Single Judge the respondent conceded that appellants have copyright of head notes and as such they undertook not to reproduce these head notes in their CD ROMS.

( 3 ) BY order dated 9. 3. 2001 applications for injunction filed in both the suits were dismissed, the operative portion whereof reads as follows :-

"accordingly, it is ordered that during the pendency of these appeals the respondents will be entitled to sell their CD-ROMs with the text of the judgment of the Supreme Court along with their own head notes which should not in any way be copy of the head notes and the text of the Appellants".

( 4 ) ALLEGING willful violation of the said order the appellant also filed a CCP Nos. 402/01 and 377/01. The respondents also filed an application for clarification of the said order.

( 5 ) MR. Sunil Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that although the appellants cannot claim any copyright in the judgments which is within the public domain and is covered by Section 14 of the Copyright Act, but in relation to the other matters as specified in the plaints, they are so entitled.

( 6 ) IN the said process, effort, imagination, and skill of the Chief Editor of the SCC is involved. It was a common case of both the parties that the judgments of the Supreme Court are in public domain and nobody can claim copyright therein. However, the argument of Mr. Gupta counsel for the appellant was that for publication of these judgments in their journal - SCC - the appellant is made upon certified copies thereof from the Registry of the Supreme Court, which forms the raw material. The appellants through their editor and other employees etc. apply labour, skill, expertise and expenditure and thereafter the judgments are published in SCC. In the process not only punctuation marks like coma, semi colon etc are added in the text of the judgment but also corrections are made in the judgment for which the consent is obtained from the Hon ble Judge concerned, the author of the said judgment. Head notes and long notes are prepared and editorials, wherever necessary are added. This is ultimate product involving labour and skill of the appellant in which the appellant has copyright.

( 7 ) THE copyright is claimed in three broad heads - i) original literary work; ii) editorial work comprising of selection, sequence and arrangement of head notes, editorial notes and comments, para numbers, verification, cross citation, pre-reference and footnotes; and iii) copy-editing works and proof reading.

( 8 ) LEARNED counsel wo












































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top