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

1994 Supreme(Mad) 215

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MISHRA & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M. ALI MOHAMED
T. Pandiyan Arivali
Versus
Kamal Hassan
O.S. Appeal No. 63 of 1994
Decided On :Decided on : 23-02-1994

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:S. Thiruvenkatasamy & N. Jothi, Advocate
For the Respondent:K. Ravi, Advocate.

The title of a work must be associated with the work and have public recognition to establish copyright infringement.

Headnote:

COPYRIGHT - Title of a Book - The court discussed the copyright claim in the title of a book and the infringement of copyright due to the use of the title for a film. The court emphasized the need for the title to be associated with the work and its public recognition to establish copyright infringement.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant claimed copyright in the title of a book 'Magalir Mattum' and filed a suit for a permanent injunction against the respondent who intended to produce a film with the same title. The trial Court rejected the petition for temporary injunction.

Finding of the Court:

The Court analyzed the definitions in Sections 13 and 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and emphasized that the title of a work is not a part of the composition or work of the author or composer. The Court highlighted the need for the title to be associated with the work and its public recognition to establish copyright infringement.

Issues: The issues revolved around the claim of copyright in the title of an unpublished book and the alleged infringement due to the use of the title for a film.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for copyright infringement, the title of the work must be used to induce the public to believe that it is the same work being performed or delivered to them. Additionally, the work must have acquired such a character in the mind of the public that they cannot easily disassociate the title from the work.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the Court rejected the claim of copyright infringement in the title of the book.

Judgment :-

MISHRA, J.

1. Heard. Appellant herein has filed a suit claiming copyright in the title of a book “Magalir Mattum” in Tamil which he has got registered with the Registrar of Copyrights. According to him, the book is yet to be published. He has acquired the copyright for the title of the work by virtue of the said registration. He has found, however, that the respondent herein has come forward with an advertisement that he has proceeded to produce a film (movie) in the name of “ Magalir Mattum ”. This, according to the plaintiff-appellant is an infringement of his copyright and that has given rise to an action in Court for a permanent injunction. He has filed a petition for temporary injunction pending the suit. The said petition has been dismissed (Reported in 1994-2-L.W. 535). He has come forward with this appeal.

2. The respondent is yet to file his written statement. He has entered appearance in the suit and contested the claim of the plaintiff-appellant for injunction of the ground that the appellant has not yet published the book and thus, the book is neither known to the respondent; nor the contents thereof. According to him, the appellant cannot claim any copyright in the title of the book, whether published or not published.

3. The trial Court has rejected the prayer for temporary injunction.


4. It is generally acknowledged by the Court in India that the definitions in Sections 13 and 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957, do not go beyond the literary work or musical work and the title ordinarily of any such work is not a part of composition or work of the author or the composer. His workmanship is confined to the work and not to the title. It is indeed the law that there is no property in the name which is the term of description used to identify the work and any other person can, with impunity, adopt it. That appears to be the defence of the respondent and it is rot easy to find any exception to it. There can still, however, be an occasion for any author or composer to complain to the Court that his copyright has been infringed, if he is able to show that the title of his work is being used by another person to induce the public to believe that a thing which he has to apply is applied, it is not different from the work to which the title has been given by the author or composer. In that case, however, it will be necessary for the author and the composer to bring such material facts and evidence in support thereof that the title of the work has acquired such a character in the mind of the public that they cannot easily disassociate the title from the work and accept the same for any other work. In other words, it should be found for holding that there is an infringement of copyright merely by the adoptation of the title of a work of art, music or drama, that it has been used by another for the purpose of inducing the public to believe that it is the same work which is being performed or delivered to them. There can also be no difficulty in acknowledging that ordinarily unless a work is published, its violation is not conceivable by someone who comes with his publication before the other work is published. That, however, cannot mean that someone who has got the opportunity to sneak into the work of art, drama or music can take the same to benefit himself by using it for performance and publication. In other words, if it is shown by the complainant that his work which has not been published has been copied and/or adopted by another person and he is able to establish that it is his work which has been so published by another who has not credited the work, there can be a case in his favour that his copyright has been infringed. We have not found in this case any such exception to hold that the registration of the copyright in the work registered in the name mentioned above by the appellant has been infringed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, has pointed out that the trial Court has in this interlocutory ap


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
whatsapp-icon Back to top