( 51 ) I am afraid that if the interpretation which is sought to be given is accepted, it will travel beyond the scope of the Section 29 and go contrary to the intention of the Legislature. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the decisions cited by the plaintiffs are not applicable in the facts of the present case

( 52 ) I am unable to persuade myself to accept the submission that the defendants have infringed the trade mark of the plaintiffs.

( 53 ) THE next question that arises for consideration is whether the defendants infringed the copyright of the plaintiffs in Hie work YEH DIL MANGE MORE (phrase and song) and the Globe Device.

( 54 ) IN terms of provisions of Copyright Act, the grant of registration is prima facie evidence of the copyright and the ownership of plaintiff No. 3. The plaintiffs claim that the phrase YEH DIL MANGE MORE is original literary work and is protected as such under the Copyright Act and also as a trade mark. The said phrase has become distinctive with the plaintiffs. It is claimed that it is rare combination of words adopted by the plaintiffs for promotion of their products in India. Large sums of money have been spent on the campaign of YEH DIL MANGE MORE for over two years. It is the exclusive work of the plaintiffs and also their trade mark. The registration of copyright is prima-facie evidence of copyright. The advertising campaigns including slogans are protectable under the law of copyright and the law of trade mark.

( 55 ) RELIANCE was placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in State of A. P. v. Nagoti Venkataraman, (1996) Vol. 6 SCC 409, wherein the Supreme Court has held that once the entries have been made by the operation of Section 48, the entries in the register of copyright shall be prima facie evidence of the copyright and the entries therein are conclusive without proof of the original copyright.

( 56 ) RELIANCE was also placed on a decision of Privy Council in Macmillan 6' company v. K. J. Cooper, (AIR) 1924 Privy Council, 1975 wherein the test of what is "original" is laid down. The relevant paragraph/finding is reproduced as under:"the word 'original' does not mean that the work must be the expression of original or inventive thought. Copyright Acts are not concerned with the origin of ideas but with the expression of through; and in the case of "literary work' with the expression of through in print or writing. The originality which is required relates to the through; but the act does not require that the expression must be in an original or novel form, but that the work must not be copied from another work - that it should originate from the author. "

( 57 ) FURTHER reliance was placed on the passage from Mccarthy on Trade marks and Unfair Competition, 3rd edition, to the effect that "however, the theme of an advertisement is copyright table if it embodies some definite concrete elements beyond a mere idea or concept".

( 58 ) THE plaintiffs also placed reliance on NIMMER on Copyright Vol. 1,1996 to the effect that "thus it i s arguable that the exclusivity of the copyright in the words as a literary work is not lost by merging the words with music in to a collective work compilation known as a musical work".

( 59 ) THE plaintiffs claim to be owner of the copyright in the Globe Device. It is sufficient for the plaintiffs to show that the device belongs to the plaintiffs to entitle them to get injunction. The above Globe Device is claimed to be original artistic work under the Copyright Act, 1957. The use of the device or any other similar device would constitute infringement of copyright. The Globe Device is stated to have been developed internationally by the plaintiffs and at the prima-fncie stage it is sufficient to show that the device belongs to the plaintiffs.

( 60 ) RELIANCE was also placed on a decision of this Court in Anglo Dutch Paint colour and Varnish Works v. India Trading House, AIR 1977 Del. 41.

.

( 61 ) TO sum up, the plaintiffs contended that it is entitled to cop

Click Here to Read the rest of this document