Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
A. Ruthramoorthy – Appellant
Versus
P. Moorthy – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The first respondent applied for registration of copyright for an artistic work titled “ARTISTIC WORK PHOTOGRAPH OF PUMP ASSEMBLY FOR AIR COMPRESSOR” on 02.05.2023. The said artistic work was registered under Registration No.A-146894/2023. By this petition, the petitioners seek rectification/expunging the registration of the said work from the Register of Copyrights.
Counsel and their contentions
2. Mr.Ramesh Ganapathy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the register of copyrights is liable to be rectified insofar as it relates to the copyright of the first respondent in view of Section 15 (1) of the COPYRIGHT ACT , 1957 (' COPYRIGHT ACT '). In this connection, he refers to the certificate of registration dated 09.07.2020 in respect of Design No.325033-01, with effect from 26.12.2019.
3. By comparing the image of the article in respect of which the design registration was granted with the work in respect of which the copyright registration was granted, learned counsel submits that the common article in both cases is the Pump Assembly for Air Compressor. By referring to the relevant dates, learned counsel emphasizes that the design registration was obtained w
Copyright shall cease to exist under the Copyright Act for any design registered under the Designs Act, preventing simultaneous protection under both statutes.
The court ruled that the distinction between artistic works and designs under the Copyright and Designs Acts requires a detailed examination, and cannot be resolved at the threshold stage of rejectin....
The court clarified the distinction between copyright and design protection, emphasizing that the determination of whether a work qualifies as a design or an artistic work requires a detailed examina....
The court established the validity of the registered design, the infringement by the defendant, and the entitlement to rendition of accounts. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation....
The protection of registered design depends on aesthetic appeal, and if the design possesses significant artistic value, it can be safeguarded against piracy despite functional elements.
A registered design is not purely functional if it can be made to function by use of any other shape as well.
Temporary injunction denied as plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie case due to admitted similarities in designs and functionality claims, violating provisions of the Designs Act.
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
