( 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 MOR

Click Here to Read the rest of this document