Other — India Copyright Cases
66 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 3 · 66 total
The Indian Performing Right Society v.Ad Venture Communication India Private Limited
The Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS) filed a suit against Ad Venture Communication India Private Limited for infringing its copyrights. The plaintiff, representing authors and composers, alleged that the defendant organized a live concert where their musical works were communicated to the public without obtaining the requisite license. The court found that the commercial exploitation of copyrighted material without permission constitutes infringement.
Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v.Aditya Pandey & Ors.
The dispute centered on whether the act of communicating or broadcasting a sound recording constitutes an infringement of the copyrights in the underlying literary (lyrics) and musical works. The court examined the interplay between rights holders of the sound recording versus those holding the copyright in the original composition.
Super Cassetts Industries Ltd. v.Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd.
Super Cassetts Industries Ltd. appealed against the Delhi High Court's order which held that the Copyright Board could grant an interim compulsory licence under Section 31 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Supreme Court examined whether such an interim power could be implied by law or if it required express statutory authorization.
The Press Trust Of India Limited v.Navbharat Press (Bhopal Pvt. Ltd.)
The Press Trust Of India Limited filed a suit against Navbharat Press (Bhopal Pvt. Ltd.) alleging unauthorized copying and reproduction of its proprietary news articles in their publications, 'Central Chronicle' and 'Navbharat'. The plaintiff asserted that as the owner of copyright in the content created by its employees, it held exclusive rights to reproduce and disseminate the work. Despite issuing legal notices, the defendants continued the alleged infringement. The court found that the defendants' publications were verbatim copies or colorable imitations of the plaintiff's copyrighted works. Consequently, the Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction restraining further infringement and awarded punitive damages of Rs. 5 lac to the plaintiff.
M/s.Ajuba Solutions (India) Private Limited v.Mastech Corporation And 2 Others
M/s.Ajuba Solutions (India) Private Limited filed several applications seeking temporary injunctions against Mastech Corporation and others for alleged infringement of copyright, business interference, defamation, and inducement of clients and employees. The court dismissed all the applications, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case or irreparable loss, noting that damages were already claimed.
The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v.Cri Events Private Limited & Ors / Synergy Media
IPRS, a non-profit cooperative body representing authors and composers, filed suits alleging copyright infringement against various defendants (including Cri Events/Synergy Media) regarding the public performance of literary and musical works. The court addressed whether licenses from IPRS and PPRS were required for performances in public events.
The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v.Mr. Aditya Pandey And Anr.
IPRS filed suits alleging copyright infringement by defendants, including Synergy Media and CRI Events. The dispute centered on the scope of rights held by IPRS regarding public performing rights for literary and musical works versus the rights held by phonographic societies concerning sound recordings. The court issued interim directions clarifying that both IPRS and PPRS licenses are necessary if a performance involves both types of copyrighted material.
Music Broadcast Private Limited v.Indian Performing Right Society Limited
Music Broadcast Private Limited challenged the right of Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRS) to demand royalties for broadcasts made by the plaintiff at its FM radio stations. The plaintiff argued that it was legally bound only to pay PPL and acted under a mistaken belief of law when paying IPRS. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the question of law.
M/S. Sunbeam Exports v.Commissioner Of Customs (Export) Nhava Sheva
M/S. Sunbeam Exports appealed an order where the Commissioner confiscated and imposed penalties on goods (printed books) destined for Nigeria. The seizure was based on the violation of the Copyright Act, 1957, because some books were marked 'For sale in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka only'.
Mr.S.Vijayaraghavan v.Mrs. Sellappappa Keeran
The applicants sought an interim injunction to prevent the respondent from copying, recording, or publishing works belonging to Late Pulavar Keeran, claiming they had purchased the exclusive rights. The respondent filed a suit asserting her title as owner of the copyright through inheritance. The court examined whether the oral agreement constituted a valid transfer of copyright.
Surinder Prakash Gupta v.Union Of India & Ors.
This writ petition challenged an order by the Copyright Board that allowed objections filed late against the Petitioner’s application for copyright registration. The core issue revolved around whether a third party could file objections beyond the statutory thirty-day period prescribed under Rule 16(4) of the Copyright Rules, 1958. The Delhi High Court ruled decisively in favor of the Petitioner, holding that there was no provision allowing objections to be filed after the stipulated time limit, thereby setting aside the Board's order and restoring the Registrar’s original decision.
M/S Phonographic Performance Ltd. v.M/S Radio Mid Day (West) India Ltd.
The Appellant (PPL), a non-profit organization administering broadcasting rights, challenged orders passed by the Copyright Board regarding compulsory licensing fees payable by the Respondent (Radio Mid Day). The appeal primarily focused on procedural grievances related to evidence and documentation before the Board. The High Court upheld the preliminary objection that the appeal was not maintainable but partially set aside the Copyright Board's order concerning the admissibility of documents.
Muthooth Finance Ltd. v.The Indian Performing Rights Society Limited
The appeal challenged the Single Judge's order granting an interim injunction sought by The Indian Performing Rights Society Limited (R1). R1 alleged that defendants were infringing copyright by broadcasting recorded songs without obtaining necessary licenses. The High Court upheld the grant of the interim injunction, finding a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff.
The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v.Sanjay Dalia & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a dispute over the proper forum for filing a copyright infringement suit. The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. challenged the court's order directing them to refile their plaint in Maharashtra, arguing that its presence in Delhi granted it sufficient territorial sway under Section 62 of the Copyright Act. However, the court ultimately held that while Section 62 provides an additional forum, a pragmatic interpretation requires the suit to be filed where the cause of action actually arose.
Radio Today Broadcasting Ltd. v.Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd.
RTB challenged IPRS's claim that it held exclusive rights to grant licenses and demand payment for the broadcast of sound recordings. RTB argued that its business was being threatened by IPRS, which claimed copyright over underlying works. The court ultimately granted a quia timet injunction restraining IPRS from initiating proceedings against RTB.
Eastern Book Company & Ors. v.D.B. Modak & Anr.
Eastern Book Company, publisher of the 'Supreme Court Cases' (SCC), sued defendants for infringing its copyright. The appellants argued that their copy-edited version of Supreme Court judgments constituted an original literary work. The High Court initially ruled against them, but the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeals, granting additional relief to protect the unique editorial inputs and headnotes of SCC.
The Academy Of General Education v.Smt. B. Malini Mallya D/O Late Sri B.
The dispute arose when the plaintiff, who inherited copyrights from Dr. Karanth via a will, sued for infringement after the Yakshagana Ballet was staged without permission. The core issue was whether Dr. Karanth had created copyright in his modified form of Yakshagana ('Yaksha Ranga') and its seven associated prasangas. The court ultimately sustained the declaration of exclusive copyright in the seven prasangas vesting with the plaintiff.
M/s.Agi Music Sdn Bhd v.Ilaiyaraja
This common judgment addresses intertwined disputes concerning the ownership and commercial exploitation of musical works. M/s. Agi Music Sdn Bhd filed a suit seeking injunctions against alleged infringement of its copyright and violation of prior agreements. Conversely, Ilaiyaraja initiated a separate suit asserting his rights over the compositions. The court examined complex issues surrounding who holds the exclusive right to deal in the sound recordings.
Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v.Debashis Patnaik And Ors.
The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. (IPRS), acting as the sole national copyright society, filed a suit alleging that the defendants operated a hotel premises where they were illegally communicating literary and musical works to the public without obtaining necessary licenses or paying royalties. The court found clear infringement of IPRS's performing rights. Consequently, the court decreed the claim in favor of IPRS, granting compensatory damages, punitive damages, and passing a permanent injunction against further unauthorized use of copyrighted music.
International Association Of Lions v.National Association Of Indian Lions
The International Association Of Lions filed a suit against the National Association Of Indian Lions seeking injunctions based on trademark, passing off, and copyright infringement related to the use of 'LION' or 'LEOS'. The primary dispute centered on whether the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction over the defendant, whose activities were primarily restricted to Rajasthan. The court ultimately held that it possessed jurisdiction to hear the suit.
Amar Nath Sehgal v.Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
Amar Nath Sehgal filed a suit against the Union of India after his bronze mural sculpture, commissioned for Vigyan Bhawan, was pulled down and stored without his permission. The plaintiff argued that this act violated his moral rights as an artist. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting him full ownership rights to recreate and sell the work, along with damages.
Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate v.Meher Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.
The appellant challenged a trial court judgment that granted permanent injunctions in favor of the respondents regarding the alleged infringement of their copyrighted artistic label, 'PRINCE SANTRA', by using similar labels like 'No. 1 TANGO SANTRA'. The Bombay High Court heard an application for interim stay of the decree.
Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. v.Phonographic Performance Ltd.
The complainants (radio broadcasting stations) sought a compulsory license from Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL) to broadcast its repertoire of sound recordings, as PPL refused to agree on mutually acceptable royalty terms. The Copyright Board ultimately granted the compulsory license and fixed specific rates for royalty payment.
Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. v.Phonographic Performance Ltd.
Multiple complainants, including Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd., sought a compulsory license from Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL) to broadcast sound recordings on their radio stations. After failing to reach an agreement on royalty rates, the Copyright Board intervened to determine reasonable compensation.
Smithkline Beecham Consumer v.Hindustan Lever Limited And Anr.
This appeal concerned a copyright infringement suit filed by Smithkline Beecham Consumer against Hindustan Lever Limited regarding toothbrushes. The plaintiffs claimed copyright over mould drawings and pilot moulds used in manufacturing the PEPSODENT POPULAR toothbrush. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that it was barred by Order II, Rule 2 of the CPC and constituted an abuse of process of law. The Bombay High Court overturned this decision, finding that the present suit involved a distinct cause of action—the importation of moulds in 1999—and thus did not amount to an abuse of process.
Ushodaya Enterprises Limited v.T.V. Venugopal And Another
The plaintiff, Ushodaya Enterprises Limited (publisher of Eenadu newspaper and television channel), filed a suit alleging that the defendants were fraudulently using its trademark 'Eenadu' and infringing the copyright of its unique artistic script on their Agarbathis business. The appeal addressed the trial court's restriction of the permanent injunction to Andhra Pradesh only.
Arte Indiana v.P. Mittulaul Lalah And Sons
The plaintiffs sought leave from the Bombay High Court to join causes of action related to copyright infringement and trademark violation, arguing that Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act allowed them to sue where they resided or conducted business. The defendants contended that since the right to sue was conferred by a special statute (the Copyright Act), it did not fall under the Ordinary Original Jurisdiction of the court.
M/S. Arte Indiana v.M/S. P. Mittulaul Lalah & Sons
The plaintiffs sought leave from the Bombay High Court to join causes of action related to copyright and trademark infringement, arguing that Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act allowed them to sue where they resided. The defendants argued that since the right to sue was conferred by a special statute (the Copyright Act), it did not fall under the Ordinary Original Jurisdiction of the Court. The court ultimately rejected the application for leave.
Employees' Federation v.Tvs And Sons Ltd.
This appeal concerned a temporary injunction sought by TVS And Sons Ltd. against the release of a documentary video cassette prepared by the Employees' Federation, which depicted alleged unfair labor practices within the company. The court found that while the film pointed to management misdemeanors, the balance of convenience favored its publication, provided certain modifications were made.
Tvs Employees' Federation And Others v.Tvs And Sons Ltd. And Another
The case revolves around an appeal filed by TVS Employees' Federation against an order of temporary injunction granted to TVS And Sons Ltd. The dispute centers on a video cassette prepared by worker representatives, which the company alleged was intended to malign its reputation through false depictions of workers' struggles.
Copyright infringement or licensing dispute?
From digital piracy to content licensing, Arctic's copyright practice covers enforcement, licensing structuring, and fair-use defences.