The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Copyrights Act, 1957, in relation to the infringement of artistic work and the distinction between protection for original artistic works and designs used for industrial production.

M. Jaichandren J.

1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned.

2. This Original Side Appeal has been filed against the order, dated 1.8.2012, made in A.No.4618 of 2010, in C.S.No.602 of 2007. The Civil Suit in C.S.No.602 of 2007, had been filed by the plaintiff in the said suit, the respondent in the present appeal, under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Madras and Order VII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedures Code, 1908, read with Sections 51, 55 and 62 of the Copyrights Act, 1957.

3. The respondent herein had filed the suit, in C.S.No.602 of 2007, praying for the grant of a judgment and decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant in the said suit, the appellant herein, its men, agents and others claiming through it from, in any manner, infringing the plaintiff’s Copyright in the artistic work in the drawings for its tractors, by substantially reproducing the same for manufacturing, selling and dealing with the STANDARD 348 tractors, parts and fittings manufactured by the appellant and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant and others claiming through it from, in any manner, passing off or enabling others to pass off the STANDARD 348 tractors, parts and fittings, which are identical or deceptively similar to the respondent MF 245 DI tractors.

4. The appellant herein had filed an application in Application No.4618 of 2010, praying for the dismissal of the civil suit, in C.S.No.602 of 2007, stating that the said suit, filed by the respondent herein, is not maintainable, in view of the statutory bar for the filing of the suit, under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. It had been further stated that the respondent had stated in the plaint filed in the suit that the drawings, which are qualified as ‘artistic work’ belongs to the plaintiff, exclusively. It had also been stated that they had been used over 100 times, prior to the filing of the said suit. It had also been stated that, under section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the copyright, in respect of any design, which is capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 1911, and not so registered shall cease as soon as any article to which it applies has been reproduced more than 50 times, by any industrial process. It is an admitted fact that the design, in respect of which the respondent has made a claim, had been used more than 50 times. Therefore, the suit filed by the respondent, in C.S.No.602 of 2007, is statutorily barred, under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957.

5. It had also been stated that, in order to avail the statutory protection, the respondent ought to have registered the design in question, under the Designs Act, 1911. Having failed to do so, it would not be open to the respondent to claim exclusive rights over the said design. As such, as no cause of action had arisen for the filing of the suit, by the respondent herein, the suit, in C.S.No.602 of 2007, is liable to be dismissed, in limine.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant had further stated that no relief against the alleged infringement of passing off can be claimed, in respect of the rights relating to copyrights, patents and designs. A claim can be made only in respect of infringement of such rights, under Section 16 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

7. It had been further stated that it is an admitted fact that the respondent has not registered the design in question, falling under the definition of the term 'design', as defined under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, as per the provisions of the said Act. The definition of the term 'design' was narrower and restricted, under the Designs Act, 1911, as compared to its definition under the Designs Act, 2000. To get the necessary protection of the design in question, the respondent ought to have registered the same, as per the procedures prescribed under Section 11 of the Designs Act, 2000, and the Designs Rules, 2001. The de