Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Prem Prakash Dhawan - Appellant
Versus
Aman Dhattarwal - Respondent
CS(COMM) 161 of 2020, I.As. 4336 of 2020, 4655 of 2020, 4681 of 2020, 4979 of 2020, 5064 of 2020 and 5673 of 2020
Decided On : 30-04-2021
Copyright Infringement - Education - Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2(i)(d), 17(c), 55, 61 - The plaintiff, a teacher, claimed copyright infringement of his handwritten notes by a former student who uploaded them online. The defendant argued that the plaintiff, being an employee of a school, did not own the copyright in the notes. The court held that the plaintiff's teaching method, including tuition classes outside school hours and notes beyond the curriculum, could make him the owner of copyright to that extent, a matter to be decided at trial. The court dismissed the defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, stating that the plaintiff's averments in the plaint disclosed a cause of action and the defendant's stand in their written statement was irrelevant at this stage.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a teacher, claimed copyright infringement of his handwritten notes by a former student who uploaded them online. The defendant argued that the plaintiff, being an employee of a school, did not own the copyright in the notes.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, stating that the plaintiff's averments in the plaint disclosed a cause of action and the defendant's stand in their written statement was irrelevant at this stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff's teaching method, including tuition classes outside school hours and notes beyond the curriculum, could make him the owner of copyright to that extent, a matter to be decided at trial. The defendant's stand in their written statement was irrelevant at the stage of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, stating that the plaintiff's averments in the plaint disclosed a cause of action and the defendant's stand in their written statement was irrelevant at this stage.
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. I may at the outset state that while reserving for orders, a reference was made to three applications, i.e., I.A.4336/2020 which is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC; I.A. 4681/2020, which is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 CPC and I.A. 4979/2020, which is an application under Order VII Rule 11 and Order I Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC. While preparing the order, I find that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have filed an application being I.A. 5064/2020 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, which has not been reserved for orders. As any decision in I.A. 4336/2020 shall have a bearing on I.A. 5064/2020, I deem it appropriate not to decide I.A. 4336/2020 vide this order and leave it for the parties to argue the same along with I.A. 5064/2020 separately.
2. The prayers made in I.A. 4979/2020 are the following:
"In view of the aforesaid, it is humbly prayed:
A. The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the present application and reject the plaint filed by the Plaintiff.
B. The cost of the present application may be awarded to Defendants.
C. Pass any such order which may be deemed fit in the interest of justice and any in favour of the Defendants."
3. For determining the said application, it is necessary to state relevant facts and the, same as noted from the plaint are as follows.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is a well-known and reputed teacher of Chemistry for Class 11 and 12, with over thirty years of experience in the field. He works for gain at Delhi Public School, R.K Puram New Delhi, one of India's premier Schools since 1991 ("DPS", for short). The plaintiff teaches 120-150 students every year. As a result of his able guidance many of the students have gone to pursue PhDs and academic research at institutions such as MIT and Harvard University in USA; while others are working in well established institutions.
5. It is averred that the plaintiff has also authored several books of Chemistry which have been published by celebrated publication houses such as Mc Graw Hill, Pearson and S. Chand Publications etc. The notes relate to different topics within the Chemistry syllabus and the plaintiff has been uploading/modifying the notes regularly to keep them abreast with the time. The plaintiff also amends these notes for different students according to their suitability. For some students, who wish to prepare for IIT /JEE, the notes have been customized to contain more information than regular course work for classes 11 and 12 text-books. This aids and enables students to prepare for the IIT/JEE examination along with their regular course work for school and/or board exams. Since the year 1994, the plaintiff has been preparing the notes of his teaching in a unique and traditional hand written manner, as opposed to typing/printing or through power point presentations, and the plaintiff affixes his signature/name on every page of the notes. The notes are updated and amended as and when needed.
6. It is stated that the notes are shared with the plaintiff's students as part of the plaintiff's teaching method, with the sole intention of aiding students in their study of the subject and to instill within them a keenness for learning.
7. It is the plaintiff's case that the defendant No.1, is a former student of the plaintiff, who offers services such as online coaching classes, providing lecture videos and reading materials on online platforms such as Instagram, YouTube, as also on his own website called www.apnikaksha.com, defendant No.2 herein.
8. It is averred in the plaint that the defendant No.1 has been flagrantly violating the plaintiff's copyright by unauthorisedly uploading scanned copies of the plaintiff's notes on various social media platforms. Further, defendant No.1 is also violating the plaintiff's rights by using the contents of the notes as part of his videos and vlogs. It is stated by the plaintiff t
The plaintiff's teaching method, including tuition classes outside school hours and notes beyond the curriculum, could make him the owner of copyright to that extent, a matter to be decided at trial.
The main legal point established is that the suit can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC if it appears to be barred by any law, as per the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The court ruled that a cause of action exists from the plaint's averments, necessitating a trial, and upheld the limitation of judicial superintendence under Article 227.
Point of Law : Trial Court would be justified in putting an end to vexatious, frivolous, meaningless and sham litigation. But this power may be exercised only where the plaint clearly discloses no ca....
Ex-parte interim orders were upheld against defendants for trade mark infringement, dismissing claims of suppression as insufficient given established rights and the distinct nature of John Doe actio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering documents filed along with the plaint for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The judgment emphasized....
An injunction obtained under misrepresentation cannot be vacated without proven suppression of material facts; established trademark rights remain effective despite prior lawsuits.
A licensee cannot claim disparagement of trademark without the owner present as a party; non-joinder does not justify the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
The court affirmed that a plaint cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 if it discloses a cause of action and emphasized that authorized representatives can validly file affidavits supporting pl....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
