Bangalore District Court
Paul Fernandes vs M/S.Rediffusion Y & R on 11 March, 2022
1
OS.No.7483/2013
IN THE COURT OF XVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU CITY [CCH.NO.10]
Dated this day the 11th March 2022
PRESENT
Sri. NAGARAJAPPA A.K., B.Com., LL.M.
XVIII Addl.City Civil Judge.
O.S.No.7483/2013
Plaintiff: Paul Fernandes
S/o Late Dr.E.C.Fernandes,
Aged about 55 years,
R/at No.302, Edward House,
37, Pottery Road,
Richards Town,
Bangalore - 560 005.
(By Sri.A.S., Advocate)
/VS/
Defendant: 1.M/s.Rediffusion Y & R,
No.20, Uniworth Plaza,
2nd Floor, Sankey Road,
Palace Guttahalli,
Bangalroe -560 020.
Reptd. by its authorized signatory.
2. M/s.Mantri Primus
Lifespaces Pvt. Ltd.,
2
OS.No.7483/2013
Mantri House, No.41,
Vittal Mallya Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
Reptd. by its authorized signatory.
(By Sri.C.L.P., Advocate)
Date of institution of 09.10.2013
suit
Nature of the suit Permanent & Mandatory injunction
(Suit on pronote, suit Damages
for declaration and
possession suit for
injunction, etc.
Date of the 03.09.2018
commencement of
recording of the
evidence.
Date on which the 11.03.2022
Judgment was
pronounced.
Year/s Month/s day/s
Total duration: 08 05 02
(NAGARAJAPPA A.K.)
XVIII Addl.City Civil Judge, Bangalore.
J UD GME N T
The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants
prays to pass judgment and decree for permanent
injunction restraining the defendants, their servants,
agents, representatives, assigns, distributors or any other
persons claiming through/under them from infringing the
plaintiff's copyright in his sketches, illustrations, water-
3
OS.No.7483/2013
colour prints and other such work by reproducing the
plaintiff's work in the defendant No.2's brochure for
'Primus Eden' or for any other project or otherwise
unauthorisedly using the plaintiff's works, either in print
or online or in any other medium, either directly or
indirectly, in any manner whatsoever.
Mandatory injunction directing the defendants to
forthwith return to the plaintiff any / all the materials in
their possession relating to the copyrighted materials of
the plaintiff;
Direct the defendants to render true accounts of the
profits that the defendants have derived from the use of
copyrighted materials of the plaintiff from 1.8.2013, till
date;
Direct the defendants to pay to the plaintiff a sum of
Rs.50,29,178/- along with interest thereon at the rate of
18% per annum from 1.8.2016 till date of payment,
towards expenses incurred on account of publishing,
launching, marketing of the book 'Bangalore, Swinging in
the 70s' and other incidental and ancillary expenses in
relation to the same;
Direct the defendants to pay to the plaintiff a sum of
Rs.30 Lakhs as damages towards wrongful association,
loss of distinctiveness, loss of reputation, loss of revenue,
brand dilution, mental agony, hardship, and litigation
4
OS.No.7483/2013
costs.
2. The nutshell case of the plaintiff are as follows:
Plaintiff is a cartoonist and artist based in
Bangalore and have become renowned for his inimitable
sketches, illustrations and cartoons over the last 4
decades. He is a creator of several posters, bang bang,
Bangalore, Sillycon city, The Ambassador of India, Shine
Boards and One Misty Morning up in Kodaikanal, part
from his illustrative books 'On a High Note' and 'Peter
Colaco's Bangalore.' He has also curated and exhibited
50 of his water colour illustrations at his gallery,
'aPaulogy', which represent the life and times of the city
of Bangalore in the 1970s. At aPaulogy, visitors can
purchase water colour prints of the plaintiff's work. As
the author and creator of all the above said original
works, he is the sole and first owner of copyright. The 1 st
defendant is an advertising agency and 2 nd defendant is a
real estate developer. On 1.8.2013 the representatives of
1st defendant Ms.Shruthi Todi and Mr.Somtirta Singha
visited the plaintiff's gallery, 'aPaulogy' and purchased 4
prints of his works namely, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore
club, coffee house and west end. They returned on
2.8.2013 along with few other colleagues of their
organization, and purchased 4 more prints namely
5
OS.No.7483/2013
'interiors series 2', 'Airlines hotel', 'St.John's' and
Bangalore golf club. The purchasers are not entitle the
right/ license to reproduce the image in any manner and
does not amount to a grant of license or assignment of
plaintiff's copyrighted works. At the time of purchase 1 st
defendant's representatives were discussing the
suitability of the plaintiff's work for their upcoming
projects. On enquiry the representative of 1 st defendants
said they were advertising professionals working for the
1st defendant and were planning to use it for the
promotion of the 2nd defendant's project 'Primus Eden'.
Further the Ms.Mona representative of the plaintiff
indicated to the representative that the works are subject
matter of copyright of the plaintiff and they cannot use
these works without the express permission of the
plaintiff and she took the contact details of the plaintiffs,
and they would contract. The plaintiff has refused to give
permission to use his copyrighted works in spite of
repeated requests of defendants.
3. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that on
8.8.2013 the defendant sent an enquiry to him through
their representatives that they would like to purchase
some of the plaintiff's stickers for use in a brochure.
Plaintiff has refused to grant permission to use his works
6
OS.No.7483/2013
as he himself planning to publish a book of his works.
The defendants 1 & 2 had knowledge of the plaintiff's
subsisting copyright in the said works. There is no
assignment or licensing by the plaintiff of his works to
either defendants in terms of sec.19 or 30 of Copyright
Act,1957. Later plaintiff received a call from an
acquaintance of his enquiring if the plaintiff had created
publicity literature for the defendant No.2's project
Primus Eden, an alleged residential community for senior
citizens and they have also handed over certain
brochures of the defendant No.2's project. Later the
plaintiff came to know that the defendants
unauthorisedly reproduced 18 whole sketches of plaintiff
and also proceeded to use the copyrighted materials
deliberately erasing and editing his name at time
mutilating the works and destroying the integrity of the
works. The 2nd defendant is blatantly circulating its
fringing brochure to its prospective customers for illegal
commercial gain, both in print and online on the
internet, at his cost and severely disadvantaging the
plaintiff. The action of the defendants amounts to blatant
infringement of his copyright.
4. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that the
gallery, 'aPaulogy' is testimony to the plaintiff's workof a
7
OS.No.7483/2013
lifetime. Plaintiff is also releasing a book titled;
Bangalore Blue. Despite the plaintiff's unequivocal
denial of permission, the defendants have flagrantly
proceeded to infringe the plaintiff's copyright and profit
at the plaintiff's expenses. The defendants infringing use
of the plaintiff work has a direct, serious and adverse
effect on the plaintiff. The members who come across the
brochure of the 2nd defendant may be misled to believe
that the defendants are legitimately associated with the
plaintiff. The rights of the plaintiff as the author and
owner of the works and the commercial rights of the
plaintiff will be affected irreversibly. The use of the
plaintiff's work for a commercial promotion of real estate
by the defendants denigrates the plaintiff's work and
further steals the distinctiveness and exclusivity
associated with the plaintiff. The images available on the
defendant No.2's brochure is of such a high resolution,
that can be easily printed or downloaded
indiscriminately, by the world at large grossly injuring
the intellectual property rights of the plaintiff. It is
further pleaded that the publisher who undertook to
publish plaintiff body of work which constituted subject
matter of the plaintiff's book Bangalore, Swinging in the
70s' through the defendant No.2 brochure, written a
letter stating that in light of the plaintiff work being
8
OS.No.7483/2013
publically displayed for commercial purpose available in
http;//www.mantri.in, it was unable to carryout the
publication of the plaintiff book. The interest of the
plaintiff being severely affected and the circulation of the
2nd defendant brochure in the course of trade is clearly in
bad faith, malafide and direct case of infringement. As a
result plaintiff has incurred a sum of Rs.50,29,178
towards expenses incurred in printing, publishing,
launching, marketing, the book Bangalore, Swinging in
the 70s' and other incidental and ancillary expenses
incurred. Plaintiff has also suffered loss of reputation,
loss of distinctiveness, loss of revenue, wrongful
association, brand dilution, and untold mental agony
and hardship and quantifies the damages of Rs.30 Lakhs
towards the above heads. Hence, the plaintiff has prayed
to decree the suit.
5. After service of summons the defendants 1 & 2
have appeared through their counsel and filed their
written statements.
6. The 1st defendant in their written statement
denied the plaint averments and contended that it is a
leading full service advertising and communication
agency, distinguished by their proprietary knowledge,
analytic rigour and creative solutions. 1 st defendant was
9
OS.No.7483/2013
entrusted to create promotional materials for 2nd
defendant's project "primus Eden" and it was agreed
between the parties that defendant No.1 would design
and deliver to defendant No.2 finalized promotional
materials for marketing of the project. Source for
contents of promotional materials of the project, "Primus
Eden" 1st defendant was come across certain images
freely circulating in the public domain which they felt
could be appropriate for the said promotional materials.
With honest and bonafide belief they were at liberty to
use the said images, as the images were freely circulating
in the public domain, and images were to be used only as
part of promotional materials and not for any commercial
activities or generation of profits, 1st defendants in the
beginning of August 2013, created a preliminary working
draft of the proposed brochure (mock brochure) and
limited number of "leaflets" carrying only one of the
sourced images for 2nd defendant's project and the said
mock brochure and leaflets were sent to 2nd defendant for
their reference and approval. Subsequent to sending the
mock brochure and the leaflets to 2nd defendant, 1st
defendant was alerted by its in house members that the
images sourced for the promotional materials had not
purchased. Although the images sourced for the
promotional materials were freely circulating in public
10
OS.No.7483/2013
domain, by way of abundant caution to ensure that they
had liberty to use the images and identify the place
where they could purchase the images and approached
the plaintiff assuming that he is the owner of the said
images for consent to use the images in the promotional
materials. The 1st defendant was altered by its in-house
members that although the images are freely circulating
and are being distributed randomly they may require
consent from the owner of the images to use the said
images in the promotional materials, therefore they
visited the place of plaintiff and plaintiff was open to the
use of the images in the promotional materials and
wanted to have a look at the manner in which the images
would be used and thereby strength the 1 st defendant
belief that he would consent for the use of the images.
When the plaintiff refused to give consent, 1st defendant
gave up the idea of using the plaintiff's images. The 1 st
defendant had created the mock brochure and 'leaflets
carrying only one sourced image' for reference and
approval of 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant was always
under honest and bonafide belief that the plaintiff who
appeared to be willing to consent the use of the images in
the promotional materials, would allow them to use the
images at the conclusion and discussions. Upon denial of
consent from the plaintiff, they gave up the idea of using
11
OS.No.7483/2013
the images and started sourcing for other contents for
the promotional materials. They were not aware of the
use of the 'leaflets' by the 2nd defendant. Upon their
knowledge, they immediately informed the 2nd defendant
to stop using the 'leaflets'. On the above grounds prayed
to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs and to pass an
order and final decree of damages to remedy the losses
suffered by the defendant including all cost of this suit.
7. The 2nd defendant in its written statement
denied the plaint averments and contended that it is a
real estate developer with unparalleled experience in
housing, hospitality, retail, education, IT and office
spaces. The 2nd defendant offers premium and affordable
real estate solutions and has always been at the forefront
of innovation and continues to do so with the launch of
senior living homes. The 2nd defendant has named its
most recent project relating to senior living as "Primus
Eden", offering a unique kind of residential community
for senior citizens. In "Primus Eden, the 2 nd defendants
does not sell any apartments or units, but offers to
customers services upon admission. In relation to the
marketing and promotion of the said project, defendant
No.2 outsourced designing and creation of the
promotional materials to 1st defendant and it was agreed
12
OS.No.7483/2013
between the parties that 1st defendant would design and
deliver to 2nd defendant finalised promotional materials
for marketing of the project. The 1 st defendant was given
the responsibility of designing and creating of
promotional materials and the promotional materials
were free of all encumbrances and that 2 nd defendant had
no liability of look-out for any encumbrances association
with the promotional materials created by 1st defendant.
In August 2013 the 1st defendant created as promotional
materials the mock brochure limited number of 'leaflets'
for 2nd defendant project and the said mock brochure and
leaflets were sent to 1st defendant for their reference and
approval to proceed. The mock brochure was kept with
defendant No.2 and was not used by the 2 nd defendant
since it was felt that the mock brochure was huge in size
and would not serve the purpose of promotion of the
project effectively. The limited number of 'leaflets'
forwarded by 1st defendant carrying only one image that
the plaintiff claims to be his was sent to select few
customers of 2nd defendant on enquiry, with the honest
and bonafide belief that 1st defendant had complete and
proper rights over the contents sourced in the 'leaflet'. In
October 2013, 2nd defendant received information from 1 st
defendant not to send leaflets to any customers,
immediately they stopped use of all leaflets and to pull
13
OS.No.7483/2013
back the limited number of leaflets that were
inadvertently sent to select customers. The 2 nd defendant
was not aware of the plaintiff's right over the images used
in the mock brochure and leaflets. The suit is grossly
undervalued and the court fee as demonstrated in the
plaint is insufficient. The plaintiff has concocted the
documents for the purpose of this case. The claim of the
damages by the plaintiff is preposterous and false. There
is no damages caused to the plaintiff except in the
plaintiff's fertile imagination. On the above grounds they
prays to dismiss the suit.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings the
predecessor in office has framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the
defendants without his permission used the
copyrighted materials by deliberately erasing and
editing his name for their project 'Primus Eden'
and thereby infringed the copyright of the
plaintiff?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled
for the relief of permanent and mandatory
injunction as prayed?
(3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled
for the relief of damages as prayed?
(4) What order or decree?
9. The plaintiff in order to prove its case, got
examined himself as PW1, got marked Ex.P1 to P87 and
14
OS.No.7483/2013
closed his side. On the other hand, the managing director
of the 2nd defendant is examined as DW1, got marked the
documents at Ex.D1 to D15 and closed their side.
10. Heard the arguments for plaintiff and
defendants. The counsel for the plaintiff has relied on the
following decisions:
1.(1978) 4 SCC 118 -RG.Anand Vs. M/s. Deluxe Films & others.
2. 1997(3) Mh.L.J. 914 - Burroughs Wellcome (India) Ltd. Vs. Uni-Sole Pvt. Ltd.
3. 2002(4) Mh.L.J.536 - Asian Paints (I)Ltd Vs M/s. Jaikishan Paints & Allied Products.
4. 2010 SCC Online Del.113 - JK.Rowling & Others Vs. City Publication and another
5. 2021 SCC Online Bom.407 - Sanjay Soya Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Narayani Trading Company
6. (1994) 2 SCC 448 - M/s. Power Control Appliances and others Vs. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd.
The counsel for the defendant No.2 has relied on the decision reported in 2007(34) PTC 33 - Palakurthu Laxmi Ganapathi Rao & Ors. Manisha Video Vision.
I have considered the rulings of both the parties and the arguments advanced by both counsels with utmost 15 OS.No.7483/2013 reverence.
11. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative
Issue No.2 : In partly affirmative
Issue No.3 : In partly affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per final order,
For the following:
REA S ON S
12. Issue No.1 :- The specific and foremost case of the plaintiff that plaintiff is an cartoonist and artist based in Bangalore and have become renowned for his inimitable sketches, illustrations and cartoons over the last 5 decades. He is a creator of several posters, bang bang, Bangalore, Sillycon city, The Ambassador of India, Shine Boards and One Misty Morning up in Kodaikanal, part from his illustrative books 'On a High Note' and 'Peter Colaco's Bangalore.' He has also curated and exhibited 50 of his water colour illustrations at his gallery, 'aPaulogy', which represent the life and times of the city of Bangalore in the 1970s. At aPaulogy, visitors can purchase water colour prints of the plaintiff's work.
13. The learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently argued that the work of the plaintiff has been featured in several news articles of repute The Hindu, 16 OS.No.7483/2013 BBC News, Huffington Post, Indian Exress etc. The plaintiff also owning a Gallery, 'aPaulogy', where he exhibits his works and has been operating for 9 years and his visitors are eminent persons from all over the world and he is an author and creator of all the said original works and sole and first owner of the copy right.
14. Further argued that 1st defendant is an advertising agency and 2nd defendant is a real estate developer. The 1st defendant representative Ms.Shruti Todi and M.Somtirtha Singha visited his gallery 'aPaulogy' on 1.8.2013 and purchased 4 prints of the plaintiff works ie., Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore Club, Coffee House and West End. On 2.8.2013 they again came to the gallery with other colleagues of 1st defendant and purchased 4 more prints of plaintiff's works ie., Interiors Series 2, Airlines Hotel, St.John's and Bangalore Golf Club. The purchase of prints of the plaintiff's work does not entitled the purchaser the right/license to reproduce the image in any manner and only gives limited right to own the print/ merchendise. It does not amount to grant of license or assignment of the plaintiff's copyrighted works, in order to further reproduce it in any other manner. They were also discussing to use the plaintiff's work for an upcoming project of 2nd defendant 'Primus Eden'. As it belongs to the plaintiff, they took his contact details. The curator of the 17 OS.No.7483/2013 Gallery, Ms.Mona intimated them that the plaintiff had refused to grant them permission to use his copyrighted material. Plaintiff has informed that he was in the process of coming out with a book of his own, featuring all his works which was to be the culmination of his works so far etc.
15. The 1st defendant on 8.8.2013 sent an enquiry to the plaintiff through email asking him to use some of the plaintiff's sketches in a brochure for the 2 nd defendant project. Plaintiff immediately reply and refused to grant permission to use his works. The plaintiff has received a call from the 2nd defendant asking for permission to use his copyrighted works again plaintiff declined to grant. On 18.9.2013, plaintiff sent an emphatic email reiterating that his works cannot be used by the defendants, both the defendants had knowledge about the plaintiff's subsisting copyright in the said works as there was no assignment or licensing to use. On 3.10.2013 plaintiff received a call form an acquaintance of his enquiring if the plaintiff had created publicity literature for the 2 nd defendant project, Primus Eden. The acquaintance handed over certain brochures of 2 nd defendant project available in a physical hard copy as well as online copy being circulated by 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant has sent the brochure to customers which contains the 18 OS.No.7483/2013 unauthorised images of the plaintiff's work. Plaintiff has discovered that the 2nd defendant marketing brochure designed by the 1st defendant had unauthorised reproductions of 18 whole sketches of the plaintiff. The sketches of plaintiff in the defendant's brochure had deliberate mutilation and cropping out of plaintiff signature. The defendants have proceeded to use the said copyrighted material of the plaintiff by deliberately erasing and editing the name of the plaintiff, at times mutilating the works and destroying the integrity of the works. The 2nd defendant blatantly circulated its infringing brochure to its prospective customer for commercial gain, at the cost of the plaintiff. The actions of the defendants amounts to blatant infringement of the plaintiff's copyright.
16. In order to substantiate the contention of the plaintiff he has produced number of documents those are Invoices and Bills as per Ex.P1 to P48. Ex.P49 is the book Book called Peter Colaco's Bangalore, Ex.P50 is the Book Shine Boards Arts, Ex.P51 is the Book on a High Note, Ex.P52 is the Book Bangalore Swinging in the 70s', Ex.P53 is the Visitors book, Ex.P54 is the Article print out dtd.11.6.2013 in Deccan Herald, Ex.P55 is the Article print out dtd.5.11.2014 in Hindu, Ex.P56 is the article 19 OS.No.7483/2013 print out dtd.15.9.2010 in Hindu Newspaper of 'Life Through Lines', Ex.P57 is the Article print out dtd.2.1.2012 in Hindu of 'The Good Old Days', Ex.P58 is the Article print out of Hindu newspaper dtd.26.3.2014 of 'The Lost World'. Ex.P59 is the Article print out in BBC News dtd.18.3.2015 of "Bangalore Cartoonist Draws 'good old days'", Ex.P60 is the print out of article published by Scroll dtd.18.10.2014 Cartoonist Captures life in Bengaluru before it became IT City", Ex.P61 is the printout of article published by Huffingtonpost.in dtd.9.12.2014 "Memory in images", Ex.P62 is the Printout of article published by the Mumbai Mirror dt.7.12.2014 Mumbai Makes Merry, Ex.P63 is the Printout of article published by Mid-Day.com dtd.6.12.2014 'That 70s' Bombay, Ex.P64 is the Printout of article published by the Indian Express dtd.14.12.2014 "Humour in the City", Ex.P65 to 69 are the invoices, Ex.P70 is the Letter dtd.31.12.2015 with particulars of statement of accounts, Ex.P71 & 72: emails downloaded copy dtd.8.8.2013 issued by defendant and reply of plaintiff. Ex.P73 is the email downloaded copy dtd.4.10.2013, Ex.P74 is the email downloaded copy dtd.6.10.2013, Ex.P75 is the Brochure of 2 nd defendant, Ex.P76 is the Letter issued by by the Publisher dtd.30.9.2013, Ex.P77 to 81 are the Invoice issued by 20 OS.No.7483/2013 Prachi Shetty & Anjali, Ex.P82 to 84 are the Bills, Ex.P85 is the online brochure of defendant produced along with Sec.65B certificate, Ex.P86 is the Company Envelope and Ex.P87 is the brochure.
17. On the other hand defendants counsel has vehemently argued that the defendants have not committed any infringing copyright, sketches, illustrations, cartoons etc. but 1 st defendant was entrusted to create promotional material of the project of 2nd defendant Primus Eden. For the source for contents of promotional materials of the project, "Primus Eden" 1 st defendant was come across certain images freely circulating in the public domain which they felt could be appropriate for the said promotional materials. With honest and bonafide belief they were at liberty to use the said images, as the images were freely circulating in the public domain, and images were to be used only as part of promotional materials and not for any commercial activities or generation of profits. Further he has argued the 1st defendant was always under honest and bonafide belief that the plaintiff who appeared to be willing to consent the use of the images in the promotional materials, would allow them to use the images at the conclusion and discussions. Upon denial of consent from the plaintiff, they gave up the idea of using the images 21 OS.No.7483/2013 and started sourcing for other contents for the promotional materials. Defendant No.1 was not aware of the use of the 'leaflets' by the 2nd defendant. Upon their knowledge, 1st defendant immediately informed the 2 nd defendant to stop using the 'leaflets'. Further he has vehemently argued that in October 2013, 2 nd defendant received information from 1 st defendant not to send leaflets to any customers, immediately they stopped use of all leaflets and to pull back the limited number of leaflets that were inadvertently sent to select customers. In fact the 2nd defendant was not aware of the plaintiff's right over the images used in the mock brochure and leaflets. Hence plaintiff is not entitled the relief as prayed in the above suit. Moreover, the defendants only confronted some documents during the evidence of PW1 and those are 7 online printouts in which there are carton pictures of the plaintiff and said documents are marked as Ex.D1 to D7. Further the defendants have produced the images of the plaintiff sketches available on internet as Ex.D8 to 14 and application form along with service agreement dt.17.6.2015 entered between 2nd defendant and its customer as per Ex.D15.
18. Now the court is to be considered is whether the plaintiff the is the registered copyright owner of aPaulogy, whether registration of copyright is a mandatory to be 22 OS.No.7483/2013 looked into. When I gone through the said documentary evidence are clearly goes to show that plaintiff is not a registered copyright owner of his cartons and sketches. But defendants have not denied that plaintiff is the original author of the books, posters, bang bang Bangalore etc., as per the documents produced by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is not the registered copyright holder whether he can seek the relief of injunction against the defendants is also material point for consideration.
19. It is true Sec.44 of Copyright Act speaks with regard to the registration which reads as follows:
There shall be kept at the copyright office a register in the prescribed form to be called the Register or Copyrights in which may be entered the names or titles of works and the names and addresses of authors, publishers and owners of copyright and such other particulars as may be prescribed.
But as per the decision cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff reported in 1997(3) Mh.L.J. 914 - Burroughs Wellcome (India) Ltd. Vs. Uni-Sole Pvt. Ltd., it is held that registration is not mandatory. Wherein there lordships have observed that Copyright it is a form of intellectual property. With advancement in technology it is very easy to copy. The basic test in actions based on the infringement of the copyright is that if a thing fetches a price, it can always be copied and therefore, it needs adequate protection. It is well 23 OS.No.7483/2013 settled that although under the Copyright Act 1957, there is a provision of registration, under Section 44 of the Act. It is not in doubt that the said procedure is an enabling provision and registration is not compulsory for the purpose of enforcing copyright. Section 44 of the Act provides for registration of work in which copyright exists but in order to claim copyright registration is not necessary.
Further held :
There is no provision under the Act which deprives the author of his rights on account of non-registration of the copyright. There is nothing in the Act to suggest that the registration is condition precedent to the subsistent of the copyright or acquisition of copyrights or ownership thereof or for reliefs of infringement of copyrights. The sine-qua-non of existence of a copyright is expenditure of skill, labour and capital on any work expanded by a person/author and unless the original work is produced in Court to prima facie show that the work has originated from author, no relief can be granted. In other words, copyright exists even without it being registered for the purposes of its enforcement. The nature of copyright is also meant to be borne in mind. It subsists in any material form in which ideas are translated. Copyright is a incorporeal right. It does not lie in any idea, but it lies in the expression in which the idea is expressed. The work of an author therefore becomes the subject matter of the copyright. In essence the copyright is a negative right of preventing copying of physical material in the field of art, literature etc.
20. Relating to the same principle of law plaintiff counsel relied on the decision reported in 2002(4) Mh.L.J.536 - Asian Paints (I)Ltd Vs M/s. Jaikishan Paints & Allied Products.
24OS.No.7483/2013 So in view of the observations of the Hon'ble High Court and the provision under section 44 is enabling provision, registration is not mandatory for the purpose of enforcing copyright. Whereas in the present case on hand also, what ever the right claimed by the plaintiff under the said Act is plaintiff's creative work like sketches, cartoons, posters etc., are no need to registration under copyright as observed by the Hon'ble High Court.
21. Now I would like to discuss the meaning of author as per Copyright Act.
Under Sec.2(d) define the Author means
(iii) in relation to an artistic work other than a photograph, the artist;
Further Author means the originator of the statement, but does not include a person who did not intend that his statement be published at all. Under the Copyright Law, only natural persons, and not incorporated entities can be the 'author'. The incorporate entities can be the 'owner' of a copyright.
Sec.2(c) defines Artistic work means:
(i) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing(including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph, whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality;
(ii) a work of architecture ; and
(iii) any other work of artistic craftsmanship.
Whereas in the present case on hand also plaintiff is the author of the artistic work, sketches and cartons 25 OS.No.7483/2013 same is not denied by the defendants. Sec.14(c) (ii) defines about copyright which reads as under:
Sec.14 Meaning of Copyright - For the purposes of this Act, 'Copyright' means the exclusive right subject to the provisions of this Act, to do or authorise the doing of any of the following acts in respect of work or any substantial part thereof namely:- (c) in the case of an artistic work,--
(i) to reproduce the work in any material form including-
(A) the storing of it in any medium by electronic or other means; or (B) depiction in three dimensions of a two dimensional work or (C) depiction in two dimensions of a three dimensional work;
(ii) to communicate the work to the public;
(iii) to issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in circulation;
(iv) to include the work in any cinematograph film;
(v) to make any adaptation of the work;
(vi) to do in relation to an adaptation of the work any of the acts specified in relation to the work in sub-clauses (i) to (iv);
In view of the said provision of law and considering the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff and considering the defence taken by the defendants more particularly the defendants have requested and sent an email as per Ex.P71 wherein it is specifically mentioned which reads thus:
I am writing regarding purchase of your sketches for use in the brochure as discussed 26 OS.No.7483/2013 with Shruti and Rajesh. Further to your conversation with Rajesh, we will use cropped parts of the sketches, as attached. It has been much appreciated and approved by the client and we would like it very much if we got your permission to use them.
Against the Ex.P71 the plaintiff has sent reply as per Ex.P72 immediately on the same day on 8.8.2013 at 2.08pm., which reads as follows:
I am truly sorry not to be able to give you the permission to use these images right now. My publisher has been quite emphatic about this and I cannot risk my present arrangement with them as the book I am working on with them is so close to print.
22. In view of the oral and documentary evidence once it is crystal clear that plaintiff is the owner of the copyright relating to the sketches, cartoons, illustration creation of several posters and also its gallery 'aPaulogy' though defendant has sought permission to the plaintiff to use his creative work to their project 'Premus Eden, but plaintiff refused to give permission.
23. In addition to that plaintiff has sent one more email as per Ex.P73 wherein reiterates that the work of the plaintiff cannot be used by the defendants. Against the said mail defendants have not sent any reply . But the 2nd defendant has sent email as per Ex.P74 to the Primus Eden - Luxury Senior Living to the customers including 27 OS.No.7483/2013 the brochure comprising of plaintiff copyright works and price chart it shows plaintiff is the original author of the said copyright works ie., artistic work, sketches etc. Even one Sham H Gantra(Partner of Quality Printers) has sent letter to the plaintiff dtd.30.9.2013 regarding printing and publishing of the book Bangalore, Swinging in the 70s. Wherein, he has specifically mentioned which reads as follows:
After our telephonic conversation requesting you not to reveal any content of the book, text or images, we find that the images are already in circulation for the public cover the interest. We regret to inform you that we will not be in a position to publish and distribute the book as was discussed earlier; The downloaded images of the commercial brochure, available at http;//www.mantri.in. In view of the work being publicly displayed for a commercial purpose, we will not be in a position to public the book.
24. Where as in the evidence of PW1 more particularly in the examination in chief, he has reiterated the plaint averments. Even in the cross examination also PW1 has not turned up. On the contrary he has specifically deposed that he has published from the year 2012. His first book is called at 'Peter Colaco's Bangalore' as per Ex.P49, second book called 'On a High Note' published in and around 2013 as per Ex.P51, and his book 'Bangalore Swinging in the 70's' as per Ex.P52 was published by Simova Educational Research, Bangalore.
28OS.No.7483/2013 The written contents inEx.P52 are belongs to him.Ex.P49 is published by Viamedia Books, Ex.P51 published by him and the selling cost of Ex.P52 is Rs.2600/- etc. Further he has deposed that he do not have any agreement with the publisher. But he had an agreement with the publisher at Mumbai in connection to Ex.P52, same is not disputed by the defendants. Further he has specifically stated that Ex.1 to 48 and 77 to 81 are the invoices for setting up gallery in Mumbai but he has one of the gallery in Bangalore which is called 'aPaulogy'
25. On the contrary in the evidence of DW1 although he has reiterated the written statement averments in his examination in chief, but in the cross examination he has deposed at page No.9 reads as under:
I am not aware of the permission given by plaintiff to 1 st defendant as stated in para 13 of my affidavit. I am not aware whether plaintiff has not given any permission to 1 st defendant to use plaintiff's copyright materials.
So in view of the evidence given by DW1 itself shows that he has suppressed the true facts because inview of exchange of email as per Ex.P71 to 73 itself shows that though 1st defendant has sought for permission to use the sketches and images of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff refused to give permission to the 1st defendant.29
OS.No.7483/2013
26. Further DW1 has deposed that he do not know how 2nd defendant has obtained Ex.D8 to 14 images and he do not know about whether the law has been violated. He has also deposed that he do not know where the 2 nd defendant brochure are got printed and he has not produced any information obtained from the industry about the quality printers before court. But in addition to that DW1 has specifically admitted in his cross examination recorded on 13.12.2021 at page No.11 reads as follows:
One brochure consisting of 9 pages is confronted to the witness. Witness is admitted the same as their brochure. The same is marked as Ex.P87. It is true to suggest that Ex.P86 and Ex.P87 are used for commercial purposes to market our projects. I am not aware whether we have used the copyright materials of plaintiff to market our projects. We have not obtain any permission from the plaintiff.
The specific admission of the DW1 itself crystal clear without the permission of the plaintiff they have used the sketches of the plaintiff it amounts to infringing of the copyright of the plaintiff as contemplated under section 51 of the Copyright Act. At this stage, I would like to reproduce said provision which reads as follows
51. When copyright infringed.--Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed--
(a) when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a licence so granted or of any 30 OS.No.7483/2013 condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act--
(i) does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of the copyright, or 1[(ii) permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright; or] 1[(ii) permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright; or]"
(b) when any person--
(i) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire, or
(ii) distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, or
(iii) by way of trade exhibits in public, or
(iv) imports 2[***] into India, 2[***] into India," any infringing copies of the work: 3[Provided that nothing in sub-clause (iv) shall apply to the import of one copy of any work, for the private and domestic use of the importer.] Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, the reproduction of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work in the form of a cinematograph film shall be deemed to be an "infringing copy".
27. Whereas in the present case on hand also defendants have unauthorisedly used the images of the plaintiff as per Ex.P52. Because Ex.P52 belongs to the plaintiff book ie., Book Bangalore Swinging in the 70s' It 31 OS.No.7483/2013 is not disputed by the defendants. When I gone through the Ex.P52 and Ex.P87 the images of Ex.P2 at page No.33, 27,21, 82,74, 60, 91, 88, 115, 106, 53, 72, 140, 117, 28, 16, 17 are unauthorisedly used by the defendants as shown in Ex.D87 ie., Coffeehouse, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore Club-1863, Shopping area Brigade, Victoria Hotel, Bangalore Golf Club, Cubbon Pak, Airlines hotel, Frazer Town police station, Old Fashion Good Manners, West End hotel, St.Johns Medical College, Uphill task,Ulsoor Lake, Bangalore Palace, Gramophone, Teapot and Thomson Bakery corresponding page number in the plaintiff's book 'Bangalore Swinging in the 70' at page No.33, 27,21, 82,74, 60, 91, 88, 115, 106, 53, 72, 140, 117, 28, 16 and 17 respectively. When on comparison of Ex.P52 & P87 are clearly goes to show that defendants unauthorisedly used the images of the plaintiff and it amounts to infringement of the copyright of the plaintiff. Because second defendant blatantly circulated its infringing brochure to its prospective customer or commercial gain, at the cost of the plaintiff and the action of the defendants amount to blatant infringement of the plaintiff's copyright.
28. It is true defendants' counsel has vehemently argued that the plaintiff is not having registration etc. But the registration of the copyright is not a mandatory as 32 OS.No.7483/2013 discussed surpa. It is also the argument canvassed by the defendant's counsel that after came to know the fact that these images and sketches belongs to the plaintiff, immediately defendants stopped working and destroyed the materials. But to show that they have stopped the work and destroyed the materials, there is no materials placed before court by the defendants. Moreover as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the plaintiff counsel reported in (1978) 4 SCC 118 - R.G.Anand Vs. M/s.Delux Films & Others . When I gone through the said decision in details though the facts of the said decision is different from the present case, but the principles laid down in the said decision is helpful to the case of the plaintiff because the sketches or creative work of the plaintiff fall under the ambit of 'artistic work' making the plaintiff the author of those artistic works which contain copyright in them as per Sec.13 of the Act and therefore, grants the author of these works the exclusive right under sec.14(c) of the Act. Moreover in this case the 1st defendant was entrusted to create the promotional materials for the 2nd defendant's project 'Primus Eden'. Whether it is registered or unregistered. Because copyright subsists as soon as the work is created and given in an material form even if it is unregistered, if the plaintiff establishes that it had created a prior to the 33 OS.No.7483/2013 defendants, even none registered by defendants of its work cannot defeat the plaintiff's claim. Where as in the present case on hand also when defendants themselves have requested to use the artistic work of the plaintiff or seeking license, when the plaintiff has refused to give permission to the defendants, itself shows that plaintiff is the prior creator of the images or sketches than the defendant as observed in the decision reported in 2002(4) Mh.L.J. 536. But defendants have infringed the mark of the plaintiff. Hence considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the oral and documentary evidence as well as the admission of DW1 as discussed supra, plaintiff has proved that defendants without permission of the plaintiff used the copyrighted materials by deliberately erasing and editing his name for their project "Primus Eden" and thereby infringed the copyright of the plaintiff . In the result I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative.
29. Issue No.2 & 3: In view of the findings on issue No.1 defendant plaintiff has proved that defendants have infringed the copyright of the plaintiff without permission of the plaintiff or license, when the defendants have copied the materials of the plaintiff deliberately by erasing and editing of his name as shown in Ex.P52 & 87 as 34 OS.No.7483/2013 discussed supra and considering the admission of the DW1 that Ex.P86 & 87 are used to commercial purpose to market their projects and also admitted that they have not obtained any permission from the plaintiff, under such circumstances I am of the considered opinion that plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiff's copyright in his sketches, illustrations, water- colour prints and other such works by reproducing the plaintiff works in the defendant No.2 brochure for Primus Eden' or for any other projects unauthorisedly using plaintiff's work either in print or online or in any other manner either directly or indirectly in any manner.
30. It is true plaintiff has specifically pleaded that inspite of request defendants not returned the plaintiff's materials which are in their possession relating to the copyrighted material of the plaintiff. Admittedly 1 st defendant has not adduced any evidence and not produced any documents. Though 2 nd defendant's managing director has adduced evidence but he has deposed ignorance where 2nd defendant brochure got printed and also deposed in his evidence that he has not produced any information obtained from the industry about quality prints before court. Further he has deposed 35 OS.No.7483/2013 that there appears to be signatures on Ex.P75 brochure and he cannot identify it etc. When the plaintiff has proved that defendants infringed the copyrights of the plaintiff through the images and sketches of the plaintiff as discussed supra by reproducing or reprinting. But those materials not return to the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff. When the defendants have no right to use the images and sketches of the plaintiff, they have no right to retain those materials with them and therefore I am of the considered opinion that it is very much necessary to issue mandatory injunction against the defendants to return the infringing materials in their possession to the plaintiff.
31. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied on the decisions reported in 2010 SCC Online Del.113(JK.Rowling & Others Vs. City Publication and another), 2021 SCC Online Bom.407 (Sanjay Soya Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Narayani Trading Company) and (1994) 2 SCC 448 - M/s. Power Control Appliances and others Vs. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd.), When I gone through the said decisions in detail, though the facts of the said decisions are different from the case on hand, but the principles laid down in the said decisions are helpful to the case of the plaintiff.
32. Now court has to look into whether plaintiff is 36 OS.No.7483/2013 entitled to damages as sought for. Admittedly plaintiff has claimed an amount of Rs.50,29,178/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1.8.2016, till date of payment, towards expenses incurred on account of publishing, launching, marketing of the book Bangalore Swinging in the70s'. In order to prove the contention plaintiff has produced invoices and bills as per Ex.P1 to 48, 65 to 68,70 and 82 to 84 in all amounting to Rs.50,29,278/-. As per the contention of the plaintiff that the publisher vide letter dtd.30.9.2013 as per Ex.P76 communicated to the plaintiff that in view of plaintiff work being publically displayed for a commercial purpose, they are not in a position to public the book. The downloaded images of the commercial brochure, available at http;//www.mantri.in and the were unable to carry out the publishing of the plaintiff book. Hence considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the infringing copyright of the plaintiff the defendants are liable to pay the expenses, cost etc.
33. Whereas in the evidence of PW1 also he has reiterated about the Ex.P1 to P48, 65 to 68, 70, 82 to 84. But the defendant No.2 only denied the claim of the plaintiff. So for as 1st defendant has not entered into witness box and not given an opportunity to the plaintiff 37 OS.No.7483/2013 to lead cross examination. Hence, an adverse inference can be drawn under Sec.114 of Indian Evidence Act against the defendant No.1. Further during the course of cross examination of PW1 he has admitted that it is correct to suggest that Ex.P1 to P48 and 77 to 81 are all invoices of setting up of his gallery in Mumbai and he has not purchased any apartment and even he has also deposed that a brochure will lead him to visit the apartment. But no where defendants counsel has taken admission from the mouth of PW1 that Ex.P1 to P48, 65 to 68, 70, 82 to 84 invoices or bills amount are not concerned to the suit claim etc. Though he has suggested that Ex.P65 to69 are created for the purpose of this case, but the same is denied by the plaintiff. Further he has admitted that Ex.P70 invoice pertains to framing of his work and also denied that Ex.P83 & 84 are created for the purpose of this case etc. So except denial of the documents produced by the plaintiff there is no specific admission from the mouth of the PW1 taken by defendant counsel to show that those documents are not concerned to the suit claim amount etc. Even in the evidence of DW1 also he has no where, stated that these exhibits are created and concocted to claim expenses etc. When plaintiff has sought huge amount towards expenses incurred on account of publishing of book etc., but due to 38 OS.No.7483/2013 the act of the defendants, plaintiff caused loss. Moreover DW1 has admitted that Ex.P86 & 87 are used for commercial purpose to market their projects without obtaining any permission from the plaintiff. Hence when I calculate the amounts mentioned in Ex.P1 to P48, 65 to 68, 70, 82 to 84 it comes to Rs.50,22,915/-. In the result, I am of the considered opinion that defendants 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount to the plaintiff because plaintiff has produced the documentary evidence to show the expenses incurred by him on various head as discussed supra. In order to rebute the documentary evidence of plaintiff the defendants have not produced the documents. Though the documents produced by the defendants at Ex.D1 to D14 are all not sufficient to hold that plaintiff is not entitled the relief sought by the plaintiff.
34. Since there is no contract between the plaintiff and defendants about payment of interest and there is no documentary evidence to show that defendants is liable to pay interest on the expenses incurred by the plaintiff, I am of the considered opinion that question of defendants are liable to pay interest on the expenses etc., incurred by the plaintiff on various heads as discussed supra does not arise. Hence, considering the acts done by the defendants and the suit filed by the plaintiff in the year 2013, and 39 OS.No.7483/2013 considering the damages caused to the plaintiff due to infringing the copyrights of the plaintiff as discussed supra I am of the considered opinion that if the court passes an order for damages for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs with interest at the rate of 6% per annum it would meet the ends of justice and equity. Because the learned counsel for the defendant has relied on a decision reported in 2007 (34) PTC 33(Palakurthu Laxmi Ganapathi Rao & Ors. Vs.Manisha Video Vision. When I gone through the said decision in detail though the facts of the said decision and present facts are entirely different but while passing award regarding quantum of damages with interest is concerned what are the principles to be followed has been discussed. If the said principles are taken in to consideration if the court passes an order for payment of interest at the rate of 6% pa., till realisation it will meet the ends of justice and equity.
35. Moreover the plaintiff has sought for damages for deceptive adoption by the defendants but they have not produced the documents to arrive that they have incurred damages of Rs.30 lakhs. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the work of the plaintiff, considering the goodwill earned by the plaintiff over artistic work etc., if the court passes 40 OS.No.7483/2013 an award towards damages of Rs.5 Lakhs with interest at the rate of 6% pa., from the date of suit realisation it would meet the ends of justice. Because defendants by make use of the images and sketches belongs to the plaintiff in their brochure for commercial purpose as admitted by the DW1, they have wrongfully gained. Since this court considered the damages for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs, question of again issuing mandatory injunction to the defendants to render true account of the profits that the defendants have derived from the use of the copyrighted materials of the plaintiff from 1.8.2013 till date does not arise. In the result, passing an award towards the damages for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs with interest will not cause any hardship to the defendants. In the result, I answer issue No.2 & 3 are in the partly affirmative.
36. Issue No.4: For the foregoing reasons, and considering the findings on the above issues, the suit of the plaintiff is deserved to be decreed partly with costs under the above circumstances. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following:
O RDE R Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed partly with costs.41
OS.No.7483/2013 The defendants, their servants, agents, representatives, assigns, distributors or any other persons claiming through/under them are hereby restrained permanently from infringing the plaintiff's copyright in his sketches, illustrations, water-colour prints and other such work by reproducing the plaintiff's work in the defendant No.2's brochure for 'Primus Eden' or for any other project or otherwise unauthorizedly using the plaintiff's works, either in print or online or in any other medium, either directly or indirectly, in any manner.
Further the defendants are hereby directed to forthwith return to the plaintiff all the materials in their possession relating to the copyrighted materials of the plaintiff by way of mandatory injunction.
Further the defendants 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay sum of Rs. Rs.50,22,915/- to the plaintiff towards expenses incurred on account of publishing, launching, marketing of the book 'Bangalore, Swinging in the 70s' and other incidental and ancillary expenses.
42
OS.No.7483/2013
Further the defendants are hereby
directed to pay a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs with interest at the rate of 6% per annum towards damages caused to the plaintiff from the date of suit till realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer, computerized, and print out taken by him, corrected and then pronounced by me, this day the 11th March 2022.
(NAGARAJAPPA. A.K.) XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AN N E XU RE
1. No.of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff/s :
PW1 : Paul Fernandes
2. No.of documents marked on behalf of plaintiff/s :
Ex.P1 to 48 : Invoices Ex.P49 : Book called Peter Colaco's Bangalore Ex.P50 : Book Shine Boards Arts Ex.P51 : Book on a High Note Ex.P52 : Book Bangalore Swinging in the 70s' Ex.P53 : Visitors book Ex.P54 : Article print out dtd.11.6.2013 in Deccan Herald Ex.P55 : Article print out dtd.5.11.2014 in Hindu Ex.P56 : Article print out dtd.15.9.2010 in Hindu Newspaper of 'Life Through Lines' Ex.P57 : Article print out dtd.2.1.2012 in Hindu of 'The Good Old Days' Ex.P58 : Article print out of Hindu newspaper dtd.26.3.2014 of 43 OS.No.7483/2013 'The Lost World"
Ex.P59 : Article print out in BBC News dtd.18.3.2015 of "Bangalore Cartoonist Draws 'good old days'"
Ex.P60 : Print out of article published by Scroll dtd.18.10.2014 Cartoonist Captures life in Bengaluru before it became IT City"
Ex.P61 : Printout of article published by Huffingtonpost.in dtd.9.12.2014 "Memory in images"
Ex.P62 : Printout of article published by the Mumbai Mirror dt.7.12.2014 Mumbai Makes Merry Ex.P63 : Printout of article published by Mid-Day.com dtd.6.12.2014 'That 70s' Bombay Ex.P64 : Printout of article published by the Indian Express dtd.14.12.2014 "Humour in the City"
Ex.P65 to 69: Invoices Ex.P70 : Letter dtd.31.12.2015 with particulars of statement of accounts Ex.P71 & 72: emails downloaded copy dtd.8.8.2013 Ex.P73 : email downloaded copy dtd.4.10.2013 Ex.P74 : email downloaded copy dtd.6.10.2013 Ex.P75 : Brochure of 2nd defendant Ex.P76 : Letter issued by by the Publisher dtdd.30.9.2013 Ex.P77 to 81: Invoice issued by Prachi Shetty & Anjali Ex.P82 to 84: Bills Ex.P85 : Online brochure of defendant produced along with Sec.65B certificate Ex.P86 : Company Envelope Ex.P87 : Brochure
3. No. of witnesses examined on behalf of defendant :
DW1 : Adarsh Narahari
4. No. of documents marked on behalf of defendant :
Ex.D1 to 7: Online printouts of cartoon pictures 44 OS.No.7483/2013 E.D8 to 14: Images of plaintiff sketches available on internet Ex.D15 : Application form along with service agreement XVIII Addl. City Civil Judge Bangalore City.45
OS.No.7483/2013 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate judgment. The operative portion of judgment reads thus:
O R DE R Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed partly with costs.
The defendants, their servants, agents, representatives, assigns, distributors or any other persons claiming through/under them are hereby restrained permanently from infringing the plaintiff's copyright in his sketches, illustrations, water-colour prints and other such work by reproducing the plaintiff's work in the defendant No.2's brochure for 'Primus Eden' or for any other project or otherwise unauthorizedly using the plaintiff's works, either in print or online or in any other medium, either directly or indirectly, in any manner.
Further the defendants are hereby directed to forthwith return to the plaintiff all the materials in their possession relating to the copyrighted materials of the plaintiff by way of mandatory injunction.
Further the defendants 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay sum of Rs. Rs.50,22,915/- to the plaintiff towards expenses incurred on account of publishing, launching, marketing of the book 'Bangalore, Swinging in the 70s' and other incidental and ancillary expenses.
Further the defendants are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs with interest at the rate of 6% per annum towards damages caused to the plaintiff from the date of suit till realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
XVIII Addl.C.C. & S.J., Bangalore 46 OS.No.7483/2013