Registration of a copyright does not confer any rights; copyrights exist whether the registration is done or not and the registration is merely a piece of evidence as to when a certain author started claiming copyrights in some artistic or some other work. [S. 44, 45, Copyright Act, 1957]

( 1 ) [plaintiffs have sued Deft. for Injunction for infringment of their Trade Mark and Copyright about their Glaxose-D and Glucon-D. They complain that Deft. is selling his product Glucose-D in cartons deceptively similar to their, by having similar lay-out, get-up, colour combination and arrangement and is passing off his inferior goods as those of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs applied for interim injunction placing on record documents showing that they are registered owners and users of the trade mark and copyright in question. Deft. made an application saying that Delhi Courts had no jurisdiction. After giving details, Single Judge disposed of the 2 applications thus :

( 2 ) IT is apparent from a plain reading of S. 62 (2), Copyright Act that the territorial jurisdiction with respect to any suit or other civil proceeding in respect of infringement of the copyright shall be the place where the plaintiffs or if there are more than one, any one of them is residing, carrying on business or personally works for gain. In this case it is stated by the plaintiffs that plaintiff No. 2 has registered office at Dr. Annie Besant Road, Bombay and has local office at Mathura Road, New Delhi. It is apparent from what has been stated by the defendant in the W/s reproduced above) that the defendant does not deny the existence of local office of plaintiff No. 2 at Delhi. Having regard to the fact that the local office of plaintiff No. 2 is situated at Delhi, the plaintiff is obviously carrying on business at Delhi. That being so, this court has jurisdiction with respect to the present proceedings which relate to the infringement of copyright.

( 3 ) DURING arguments the complaint of the counsel for the defendant was that the plaintiff had acted with cleverness by way. of combining his cause of action on the basis of copyright so that they could bring suit in respect of both the causes of action at Delhi, that cleverness should not be encouraged and that, therefore it should be held that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. But in my view there is hardly any cleverness. The plaintiffs desire protection against infringment of their rights with respect to their product Glucose and Glucon-D. The products are the same while different types of rights are claimed. The plaintiffs claim rights as proprietor of registered trade mark as well as copyright with respect to the carton of the same very product. Not only that the plaintiffs could combine these causes of action on the basis of registered trade mark and registered copyright, but also it was absolutely necessary to have done so because the same were being claimed in respect of the same product.

( 4 ) I, therefore, hold that this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. When the objection of the defendant is so hollow and without any force, there is hardly any necessity of framing any issue and then formally hearing arguments again as arguments were heard on this matter. Hence I overrule the aforesaid objection of the defendant.

( 5 ) IN the W/s the defendant also raised an objection to the effect that as plaintiffs have fixed the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 50,000. 00, the suit should have been filed in the court of the Distriect Judge and not in the High Court and that, therefore, the plaint be returned for presentation to the proper court. However, no arguments were addressed on this plea. It is wrong on the part of the defendant to say that the plaintiff fixed the value of the suit at Rs. 50,000. 00. Paragraph of the plaint regarding value of the suit for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is 23. In that paragraph, such value for 5 different reliefs has been mentioned. If the valuations are added, they work out to Rs. 1,00,800. 00. That being so, this court has obviously pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. Hence I reject the aforesaid application (I. A. 664 of 1983 ).

( 6 ) I. A.