Mahinder Narain,j.

( 1 ) IN this case, the plaintiff claims to be owner of copyright in a catalogue.

( 2 ) THE catalogue relates to machinery (Power Presses) manufactured by the Plaintiff, copyright wherein is alleged to have been infringed by another catalogue of the defendants.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff and defendants were carrying on business together at one time. They were functioning as partners and are real brothers. They were carrying on business in the name of elbee , l standing for Lamba and b for Brothers. These two alphabets LB made up in a word form of elbee .

( 4 ) ON dissolution of partnership w. e. f. 1. 4. 1985 by a Deed of Dissolution dated 20. 10. 1985, the two brothers appear to have carried on business independently.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff says that the two brothers are litigating about the trade mark elbee in another proceeding, with which we are not concerned here.

( 6 ) THIS suit is relatable to a "catalogue", actually it is no more than a Coloured. Brochure, which is claimed to have been made by one Mr. S. K. Bassi which catalogue/ brochure relates to the power presses which are manufactured and marketed by the plaintiff.

( 7 ) IN this catalogue, there are written descriptive words, tables and photographs.

( 8 ) WRITTEN words or "expression" created by stringing words together is copyrightable subject matter; as "tables" are prepared by expenditure of skill and labour such tables are also protected by copyright; photographs are copyrightable too. The catalogue/ brochure is, therefore, a combination of different types of copyrightable subject matter, which is afforded protection under the Copyright Act, 1957. The question in this case is: Does the Catalogue/brochure of the plaintiff protected by the copyright Act, 1957.

( 9 ) THERE is no reservation claim of copyright in the Catalogue/brochure of the plaintiff in any of the recognised method, i. e. , by a mark (C); or the expression "copyright Reserved" or Copyright: Lamba Brothers (P) Ltd; there is no such reservation the text in the brochure, the tables in the brochure or the photographs in the brochure.

( 10 ) I have brought to the counsel s attention to the provisions of Press Registration Act Section 18 (14) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, clearly states that particulars of all books printed in India have to be filled-in the "catalogue of books". Which has to contain particulars mentioned in Section 18, and under sub-section ( 14) the name and address of the proprietor of the copyright, or of any portion of such copyright has to be entered. As stated above, the particulars about the name of the author, or claims as to the whole or part of the copyrightable matter are not printed in the Catelogue/brochure in suil

( 11 ) COUNSEL for the plaintiff says that according to the Universal Copyright Conven- tion revised at Paris in 1971, Article III, protection is to be given to the catalogue subject 170 matter of this suit. It is contended that it is of no consequence that claim to copyright is not made in or upon the Catalogue in suit. Article III of that Convention reads as under:- "any Contracting State which, under its domestic law, requires as a condition of copyright, compliance with formalities such as deposit, registration, notice, notarial certificates, payment of fees or manufacture of publication in that Contracting State, shall regard these requirments as satisfied with respect to all works protected in accordance with this Con- vention and first published outside its territory and the author of which is not one of its nationals, if from the time of the first publication all the copies of the work published with the authority of the author or other copyright proprietor bear the symbol (C) accompanied by the name of the copy- right proprietor and the year of first publication placed in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of claim of copyright"

( 12 ) FROM the above, it is clear that the protection would be given r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document