Excerpt: Madras High Court A. Sundarasan vs A.C. Thirulokchandar And Anr. on 11 February, 1971 Equivalent citations: (1973) 2 MLJ 290 Author: S Maharajan JUDGMENT S. Maharajan, J. 1. The plaintiff sues for declaration that he is the owner of the copyright in a Tamil story, 'nazhuval' written by him, for a permanent injunction restraining … Continue reading A. Sundarasan vs A.C. Thirulokchandar And Anr.
M/S. Entertainment Network … vs M/S. Super Cassettee Industries
Excerpt: Supreme Court of India M/S. Entertainment Network ... vs M/S. Super Cassettee Industries ... on 16 May, 2008 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Lokeshwar Singh Panta REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5114 OF 2005 M/s Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. ... Appellant Versus M/s Super Cassette … Continue reading M/S. Entertainment Network … vs M/S. Super Cassettee Industries
‘author’, as defined in s.2(d), in relation to a musical work, is only the composer and s. 16 confies ‘copyright’ to those works which are recognised by the Act. This means that the composer alone has copyright in a musical work. The singer has none.
Excerpt: copyrighted music is not the soulful tune, the superb singing, the glorious voice or the wonderful render- ing. It is the melody or harmony reduced to print, writing or graphic form. The Indian music lovers throng to listen and be enthralled or enchanted by the nada brahma, the sweet concord of sounds, the rags, … Continue reading ‘author’, as defined in s.2(d), in relation to a musical work, is only the composer and s. 16 confies ‘copyright’ to those works which are recognised by the Act. This means that the composer alone has copyright in a musical work. The singer has none.
Radio Today Broadcasting Ltd vs Indian Performing Rights Society
Excerpt: The definition of quia timet, borrowed from Black's, means a legal doctrine that allows a person to seek equitable relief from future probable harm to a specific right or interest. Therefore, such equitable relief can be granted to a person, provided he can successfully demonstrate before a Court that his fears in this regard … Continue reading Radio Today Broadcasting Ltd vs Indian Performing Rights Society
Fortune Films International vs Dev Anand And Anr
Excerpt: Bombay High Court Fortune Films International vs Dev Anand And Anr. on 14 March, 1978 Equivalent citations: AIR 1979 Bom 17, (1978) 80 BOMLR 263 Author: Desai Bench: Kantawala, Desai JUDGMENT Desai, J. 1. This appeal is from the order of Gadgil J. dated 3rd January 1978 made on the plaintiff's Notice of Motion, … Continue reading Fortune Films International vs Dev Anand And Anr
merely by correcting certain typographical or grammatical mistakes in the raw source and by adding commas, full stops and by giving paragraph numbers to the judgment will not makethe work entitled toprotection under the Copyright Act.
Excerpt: merely by correcting certain typographical or grammatical mistakes in the raw source and by adding commas, full stops and by giving paragraph numbers to the judgment will not their work as the original literary work entitled to protection under the Copyright Act. Plaintiffs, therefore, have no copyright in the judgments published in their law reports. … Continue reading merely by correcting certain typographical or grammatical mistakes in the raw source and by adding commas, full stops and by giving paragraph numbers to the judgment will not makethe work entitled toprotection under the Copyright Act.
A joint owner can not, without the consent of the other joint owner, grant a license or interest in the copyright
Excerpt: A joint owner can not, without the consent of the other joint owner, grant a license or interest in the copyright. If a license is granted by one joint owner without the consent of the other, it does not bind the former and the other joint owner can sue the licensee for infringement Allahabad … Continue reading A joint owner can not, without the consent of the other joint owner, grant a license or interest in the copyright
It is a settled principle of law relating to trade mark that there can be only one mark, one source and one proprietor
Excerpt:.It is a settled principle of law relating to trade mark that there can be only one mark, one source and one proprietor. It cannot have two origins. Where, therefore, the first defendant-respondent has proclaimed himself as a rival of the plaintiffs and as joint owner it is impermissible in law. Even then. the joint proprietors … Continue reading It is a settled principle of law relating to trade mark that there can be only one mark, one source and one proprietor
Jagdish Prasad Gupta vs Parmeshwar Prasad Singh And Ors
Excerpt: Patna High Court Jagdish Prasad Gupta vs Parmeshwar Prasad Singh And Ors. on 30 March, 1965 Equivalent citations: AIR 1966 Pat 33, 1966 CriLJ 54 Author: T Nath Bench: T Nath ORDER Tarkeshwar Nath, J. 1. These are three applications directed against separate orders dated 1-6-1963 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sadar Patna, dismissing … Continue reading Jagdish Prasad Gupta vs Parmeshwar Prasad Singh And Ors
writings of a religious preacher, , or his sermons and sayings which are compiled on his behalf would prima facie, come within the meaning of ‘literary works’ and would in my view, be protected under the Copyright Act.
Excerpt:writings of a religious preacher, , or his sermons and sayings which are compiled by Satasang on his behalf would prima facie, come within the meaning of 'literary works' and would in my view, be protected under the Copyright Act. Calcutta High Court Satsang And Anr. vs Kiron Chandra Mukhopadhyay And ... on 18 July, … Continue reading writings of a religious preacher, , or his sermons and sayings which are compiled on his behalf would prima facie, come within the meaning of ‘literary works’ and would in my view, be protected under the Copyright Act.
sarvepalli legal 