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

2016 Supreme(Del) 1512

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
RITIKA PRIVATE LIMITED – Plaintiff
Versus
BIBA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED – Defendant
CS (OS) No. 182/2011
Decided On : 23-03-2016

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Tanvi Misra, Advocate.
Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Mohd. Saeed Hussain, Ms. Roopa Dayal and Mr. Yash Karan Jain, Advocates.

Copyright in a design ceases as soon as any article to which the design has been applied has been reproduced more than 50 times by an industrial process by the owner of the copyright or, with his license, by any other person.

Headnote:

COPYRIGHT - SUBJECT MATTER - DESIGN - REGISTRATION - COPYRIGHT CEASES - SECTION 15(2) OF THE INDIAN COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 - APPLICABILITY - RATIO - [MICROFIBRES INC. VS. GIRDHAR & CO. & ANR. 2009 (40) PTC 519 (DEL)]

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, a fashion designer, filed a suit against the defendant for copyright infringement and violation of trade secrets. The plaintiff claimed copyright in various drawings and sketches created by her for dresses sold under the brand name RITU KUMAR. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's copyright was extinguished under Section 15(2) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, as the drawings and sketches were capable of being registered as designs under the Designs Act, 2000, but were not so registered.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the plaintiff's copyright in the drawings and sketches ceased under Section 15(2) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, as they were capable of being registered as designs under the Designs Act, 2000, but were not so registered. The Court relied on the ratio of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Microfibres Inc. vs. Girdhar & Co. & Anr. 2009 (40) PTC 519 (Del), which held that the copyright in a design ceases as soon as any article to which the design has been applied has been reproduced more than 50 times by an industrial process by the owner of the copyright or, with his license, by any other person.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff's copyright in the drawings and sketches ceased under Section 15(2) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, as they were capable of being registered as designs under the Designs Act, 2000, but were not so registered. 2. Whether the plaintiff's trade secrets were violated by the defendant.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the plaintiff's copyright in the drawings and sketches ceased under Section 15(2) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, as they were capable of being registered as designs under the Designs Act, 2000, but were not so registered. The Court relied on the ratio of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Microfibres Inc. vs. Girdhar & Co. & Anr. 2009 (40) PTC 519 (Del), which held that the copyright in a design ceases as soon as any article to which the design has been applied has been reproduced more than 50 times by an industrial process by the owner of the copyright or, with his license, by any other person.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGMENT :

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. Though this application is titled under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), counsel for the defendant states that this application actually is under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for dismissing the suit on the admitted facts and legal position, and since the heading of the application will not change the substance, the subject application be treated as an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Ordered accordingly.

2. Plaintiff has filed the present suit claiming copyright in various drawings and sketches which are created by the plaintiff for dresses being sold under the trade name/brand RITU KUMAR. It is pleaded that the drawings and sketches are distinctive, exclusive and identifiable with the brand RITU KUMAR of the plaintiff and the brand enjoys goodwill and reputation. It is pleaded that there is originality in the garment prints and sketches created by the plaintiff for the dresses/garments. It is pleaded that ensembles of the plaintiff are so designed that each component, such as sleeves, front and back panels etc are delineated and are co-ordinated with unique features. The plaintiff is stated to be maintaining digital records of the creation of each drawing and print by giving it identification code and name which is also shown in the invoices issued by the plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff with respect to its copyright work is set out in the form of process adopted by the plaintiff as detailed in paras 10, 11 and 12 of the plaint and which paras read as under:-

“10. The initial stage of the Plaintiff’s creative process in general may be summarized as follows:

(a) A drawing or sketch is created by Mrs.Ritu Kumar and/or other designers employed by the Plaintiff. The same is an original derivative artistic work.

(b) The drawing is put in digital form and completed on a computer assigning colours. The same is independently a derivative artistic work. These first stages result in the creation of independent artistic works which can be enjoyed for their own sake or used for various purposes including different garments.

11. The artistic works so created are then suitably adapted for different garments and different partes of garment ensembles, as described below. Each such variation is a further, derivative work, which does not affect the Plaintiff’s separate rights in the original.

(a) Screems are prepared for each colour facilitationg an initial printing (“swatching”) to test the design on different fabrics.

(b) The artisti work so created is then available for use in connection with different products.

(c) Acording to requirement and market assessment, but artistic work is then customized for use on different garments with appropriate variations.

12. Further, in some cases embriodiery of an artistic characher is done on each garment individually, by hand or using a machine, by a skilled craftsman. Such garments are works of artistic craftsmanship”.

3. Plaintiff claims to be the first owner of the copyright in all the products of the plaintiff’s company created from the sketches, drawings, designs etc.

4. Plaintiff also pleads violation of its trade secrets by the defendant inasmuch as defendant is employing erstwhile employees of the plaintiff. The said employees are Ms. Neelam Arora and Ms. Reshu Singbal. It is stated that these employees are in know of the trade secrets of the plaintiff’s work and are revealing these trade secrets to the defendant. The issue with respect to violation of trade secrets of the plaintiff by the defendant is pleaded as per paras 16 and 17 of the plaint and these paras read as under:

“16. Fashion products have a short life, and the Plaintiff’s business depends on the Plaintiff’s knowledge and understanding of trends and changing tastes, its corporate judgment under Mrs. Ritu Kumar’s creative leadership of what will meet with success next season. There is a long gestation period for each product during which the utmost confidentally has to





























































































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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top