India Copyright Cases
306 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 11 · 306 total
Elder Remedies Limited v.Elder Prroject Limited And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications, including those concerning document filing procedures. Crucially, the court proceeded with the main petition filed by Elder Remedies Limited seeking cancellation of a copyright registration (No. 2153/2020-CO/A). The petitioner alleges that the respondent unlawfully obtained the copyright without proper notification under Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013, which fundamentally prejudices the petitioner's rights. The court accepted notice and directed both parties to file detailed replies regarding the validity of the registration.
INCYTE HOLDINGS CORPORATION v.DR REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing copyright. The defendant raised defenses regarding service of documents and asserted that its activities are limited to permissible uses under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970.
Fincraft Media And Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v.Mahesh Vaman Manjrekar & Ors.
Fincraft Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. filed a Leave Petition seeking permission from the Bombay High Court to file a suit concerning copyright infringement related to the film 'Natyasamrat-Asa Nat hone Nahin.' The petitioner argued that while most transactions occurred in Mumbai, some agreements were executed in Hyderabad, potentially challenging the court's territorial jurisdiction.
Sree Devi Video Corporation v.M/s.Sri Murugan Pictures
The plaintiff sued the defendants seeking a declaration that it was the absolute owner of limited video, cable TV, and internet copyrights in certain films, acquired from M/s.Sri Murugan Pictures under an agreement dated 02.12.2000. The suit also sought permanent injunction against infringement by the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff successfully established its case through documentary evidence.
Dr. Nidhi Gulati v.M/s. Repro Books Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Repro Books Limited (and Amazon Retail India Pvt. Ltd.) for the unauthorized reproduction and sale of her copyrighted Ph.D thesis, "Construction of Childhood in Cinema," as a book. The court found that Defendant No. 1 infringed upon the exclusive rights of the plaintiff by selling a word-for-word copy without permission or royalty.
Saregama India Limited v.Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited
Saregama India Limited filed a declaratory suit under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, seeking protection against threats made by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited regarding copyright infringement. The core dispute involved Saregama claiming ownership over numerous sound recordings and literary works. However, when Zee subsequently initiated its own suit for copyright infringement against Saregama, the Delhi High Court held that this action brought the matter within the scope of the proviso to Section 60. Consequently, the initial declaratory suit filed by Saregama was rendered infructuous.
Informa Markets India Private Limited v.M/S 4Pinfotech And Anr
Informa Markets India Private Limited filed a petition seeking rectification and removal of an existing copyright registration (L-79443/2018) for the work titled 'Virtual Expo'. The petitioner challenged the validity of the registration, arguing that the document merely described generic benefits of conducting virtual expositions. The Delhi High Court examined whether this description constituted protectable literary material or was simply a documentation of an idea. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that since the content was abstract and extremely generic, it did not meet the threshold for copyrightability.
Anil Kumar Gera Trading As Alka Food Industries v.Mr Ramesh Chander Trading As Anil Food Industries
This Delhi High Court order addressed petitions challenging two existing copyright registrations held by M/s Anil Food Industries. The petitioner, Alka Food Industries, alleged that these registrations for artistic labels were obtained improperly and in contravention of statutory rules. The core legal issue revolved around whether the Respondent complied with the mandatory requirement of issuing notice to all interested parties during the registration process. The Court directed that the impugned copyrights be treated as revoked/cancelled, while simultaneously reviving the original applications. This allows the Petitioner a fresh opportunity to file an opposition, ensuring the matter is re-decided in accordance with law.
Wieden+Kennedy India Private Limited v.Jindal Steel And Power Limited
Wieden+Kennedy India Private Limited approached the Delhi High Court seeking interim protection against Jindal Steel And Power Limited regarding an ad film campaign titled 'Steel of India'. The petitioner claimed authorship and copyright over the creative works, arguing that the respondent terminated the contract without fulfilling payment obligations. The court addressed the dispute under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, while acknowledging the IP nature of the claim. The judgment mandated a deposit of Rs. 59 lakhs by the respondent and granted an interim injunction against distribution if the deposit was not made within two weeks.
Bhimavaram Community Network Bcn v.M/S Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of its application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in a commercial suit filed by the respondent. The core dispute involved allegations that the petitioner was infringing the respondent's copyright by removing/overshadowing the 'T-Series' Logo while broadcasting content. The court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding no patent perversity in the Trial Court's decision.
Mohd Shakir v.Gopal Traders And Anr
Mohd Shakir filed a petition seeking rectification of an artistic work titled 'MYA', which was registered under the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner claimed that the impugned registration belonging to Gopal Traders copied an earlier artwork owned by a third party in Lebanon and had prior international trademark registrations for 'MYA'. However, the court dismissed the petition, noting that copyright registration is only prima facie evidence of particulars entered therein. Furthermore, the court highlighted the petitioner's own conflicting assertions regarding ownership in previous opposition proceedings, ultimately upholding the validity of the existing registration.
Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Curewin Hylico Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
This case involves disputes between two pharmaceutical companies regarding the artistic work and copyright protection of 'ENERZY' powder. The core legal challenge revolved around whether the plaintiff's suit, which sought injunctions against infringement, should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC because its valuation was tied to a prior agreement. The High Court examined the distinction between statutory rights (Copyright Act) and contractual obligations, ultimately modifying the trial court's order to allow the suit to proceed without mandating the inclusion of all specific pleadings from the external agreement.
Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Curewin Hylico Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
This case involves a dispute over the artistic work 'ENERZY powder' between Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Curewin Hylico Pharma Pvt. Ltd. The core legal battle centered on whether the Commercial Court was correct in directing the plaintiff to amend their plaint based on an agreement dated 22.01.2015, specifically regarding valuation for court fees. The High Court examined the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution and ultimately ruled that the statutory copyright right should govern the suit's substance, not solely the contractual terms.
Anil Kumar Gera Trading As Alka Food Industries v.Mr Ramesh Chander Trading As Anil Food Industries
This Delhi High Court order addresses a petition seeking the cancellation of two impugned copyright registrations related to a confectionary tablet label. The Petitioner argued that the Respondent failed to comply with mandatory notice requirements under the Copyright Rules, 2013. Conversely, the Respondent contended that the Petitioner was not an 'aggrieved person' and cited prior rejection orders as res judicata. The Court deferred final adjudication, requiring both parties to clarify the pending issues in the underlying suits.
Inox India Private Limited v.Cryogas Equipment Private Limited
This appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenged the dismissal of a Commercial Trademark Suit, which had been rejected on the grounds that the suit was barred by Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. The dispute centered on whether proprietary engineering drawings used for commercial vehicles qualified as an artistic work under copyright law and if their protection lapsed after exceeding a production threshold of 50 units. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the dismissal order and directing the Commercial Court to reconsider both the rejection and injunction applications simultaneously.
Addala Sitamahalakshmi v.State Of Andhra Pradesh
The petitioner, a publishing house, challenged G.O.Rt.No.858 dated 09.11.2010, which restricted book printing rights to one entity (Respondent No.4), leading to an inspection and seizure of the petitioner's books. The petitioner argued that their business was being unfairly targeted and that non-literary scientific books are not protected by copyright.
Made Easy Education Private Limited v.Telegram Fz Llc & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed ongoing infringement issues concerning educational video content on Telegram. While the defendant, Telegram, has complied with previous takedown orders, the plaintiff continues to face proliferation of infringing links and source code issues. The court allowed the plaintiff time to present technical evidence regarding these persistent infringements, while reserving a discussion on dynamic injunctions for future hearings.
M/S Dandi Salt Pvt. Limited v.M/S Indo Brine Industries Limited
M/S Dandi Salt Pvt. Limited filed a review petition challenging an earlier dismissal by the Copyright Board on grounds of being time-barred. The core dispute involved objections raised by the petitioner against M/S Indo Brine Industries Limited's attempt to register copyright for the artistic work 'INDOBRINE DANDI SALT/DANDI NAMAK'. Although the initial appeal was dismissed due to procedural delays, the High Court considered the parties' claims and subsequent settlement. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Copyright Office for fresh consideration.
Manya Vejju Alias Mv Kasi v.Sapna Bhog
This appeal before the Bombay High Court concerned an order restraining the appellant, Manya Vejju, from publishing statements alleging copyright infringement against the respondent, Sapna Bhog. The dispute centered on allegations of plagiarism between their respective romance genre literary works. The core legal question was whether the threat of infringement action fell under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The High Court found that the trial court's inquiry into the merits of the copyright claim exceeded its remit and consequently quashed the impugned order, remitting the matter back for a fresh determination.
Manya Vejju Alias Mv Kasi v.Sapna Bhog
This appeal before the Bombay High Court concerned an order restraining the appellant (Manya Vejju) from making statements alleging copyright infringement against the respondent (Sapna Bhog). The dispute centered on allegations of plagiarism and unauthorized copying between their respective literary works in the romance genre. The court held that determining whether actual infringement exists is beyond the scope of a suit under Section 60, as it risks prejudging an action for infringement. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the District Judge for fresh determination after considering the underlying infringement suit.
Perfetti Van Melle S.P.A v.M.G Products / M.G Food Product
Perfetti Van Melle S.P.A filed a cancellation petition seeking rectification of a specific copyright registration (A-79261/2007) held by M.G. Products. The court examined the matter in light of a prior civil suit that had been decreed based on a settlement agreement dated October 31, 2012. This settlement explicitly included the Respondent's agreement to cancel the impugned copyright registration. Consequently, the Delhi High Court directed the cancellation and expungement of the registration from the Register of Copyrights.
M/S Sachdeva And Sons Industries Ppvt Ltd v.M/S Jivan Ram And Sons
This matter involved a rectification petition filed by M/S Sachdeva And Sons Industries Ppvt Ltd against the Copyright registration held by M/S Jivan Ram And Sons for an artistic work titled 'PYARI'. The petitioner sought to challenge this copyright based on its own registered Trademark, 'PARI'. However, due to repeated failures of the Petitioner to appear in court and difficulties in serving notices, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the rectification petition for non-prosecution.
Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v.Fantasy Sports Myfab11 Pvt. Ltd.
Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. filed an injunction seeking to prevent Fantasy Sports Myfab11 Pvt. Ltd. from unauthorizedly using its proprietary Fantasy Sports Mobile Application (EXCHANGE22). The Plaintiffs claimed that their unique game structure, components, and user interface were protected under copyright law. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately found no prima facie evidence of copyright infringement by the Defendants. Consequently, the court vacated the ex parte injunction previously granted to the Plaintiffs.
M.Viyan Aarman v.Etecetra Entertainment
M.Viyan Aarman filed a suit for copyright infringement concerning the title of the film 'Saamaniyan'. The appeal challenged an order rejecting the application for injunction, arguing that the appellant had registered the title and faced breach of trust by the first respondent. However, the court found that the appellant was only alleging infringement qua title, which is not maintainable under existing legal precedents.
Manju Singal Proprietor Singla Food Products v.Deepak Kumar, Deepak Manocha, Sara Sales and Anr.
Manju Singal Proprietor Singla Food Products filed a petition seeking rectification of a conflicting copyright registration held by Deepak Kumar. The petitioner claimed ownership over their artistic packaging design for 'Gulchhare' since 2009, asserting that the respondent's subsequent registration was based on an identical and slavish imitation. After examining the works, the Delhi High Court found that the respondent's work lacked originality compared to the petitioner's earlier creation.
SSG Pharma (P) Ltd v.Paras Pan Products Pvt Ltd
SSG Pharma (P) Ltd filed a petition seeking rectification of the copyright held by Paras Pan Products Pvt Ltd concerning the artistic work 'NAGRAJ HARFANMOLA'. The Petitioner argued that its own artistic work, 'SATMOLA', was the prior adopter and user. The court found that the Respondent's artistic work bore a striking resemblance to the Petitioner's, noting that the pouches were copied in terms of color scheme and images of children. Consequently, the court directed the rectification/expungement of the impugned copyright registration.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Pradeep Dhidaria
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed an Interim Application against Pradeep Dhidaria alleging that the latter had slavishly copied the original artistic work featured on the Plaintiff's product packaging. The court examined the resemblance, noting similarities in elements like the starburst and globe depiction used on the rival product's trademark 'MASTER'. Based on this prima facie finding of copying and subsisting copyright, the court continued the ex-parte ad-interim relief granted earlier.
Mentor Graphics Ireland Ltd. v.Acit, Circle- 2(2)(1), International ...
Mentor Graphics Ireland Ltd. appealed against an assessment order holding that consideration received from supplying/distributing its copyrighted software was chargeable to tax as 'Royalty' under the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Tribunal, following Supreme Court precedents, ruled that payments made for resale through EULAs do not constitute royalty for the use of copyright.
A.Arjun v.Balaji B
A.Arjun filed an application seeking leave from the Madras High Court to sue Balaji B for copyright infringement and passing off related to artistic work used on garments. The respondent challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing that both parties operate primarily in Madurai, despite alleged online sales in Chennai.
Ten Events And Entertainment v.Novex Communications Private Limited & Ors.
Ten Events And Entertainment filed a declaratory suit challenging the requirement to obtain licenses or NOCs from Defendants, who claimed copyright over songs played during wedding events. The plaintiff argued that such usage falls under 'fair dealing' as per Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act. However, the Delhi High Court found that the plaintiff failed to plead the necessary material facts—such as the nature and bona fides of the ceremony—required by law to establish a cause of action for this specific declaration. Consequently, the court dismissed the interim application and directed the plaintiff to show cause why the entire suit should not be dismissed.
Copyright infringement or licensing dispute?
From digital piracy to content licensing, Arctic's copyright practice covers enforcement, licensing structuring, and fair-use defences.