Delhi District Court
M/S. Navneet Education Ltd vs M/S. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd on 30 August, 2022
DLCT010104272018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR
AGGARWAL : DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL) -01 :
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS (Com.) No. 1876/2019
M/s. Navneet Education Ltd.,
A Company duly registered and
Incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956,
having its registered office at :
Navneet Bhavan, Bhavani,
Shankar Roard, Dadar (West),
Mumbai - 400028.
Through its Authorized Representative,
Sh. Sanjeev Gala, Vice President.
Also at : 2E/23, Orion Plaza,
2nd Floor, Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi.
..... Plaintiff.
Versus
1. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Directors,
having address at :
Plot No. 69, Basement,
Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 1 of 41
M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
Sector-40, Urban Estate,
Gurgaon - 122002.
Also at :
H. No. K-701,
Ambience Island,
NH-8, Gurgaon,
Haryana - 122001.
2. Sh. Gurmeet Singh, (Director),
having address at :
Plot No. 69, Basement,
Sector-40, Urban Estate,
Gurgaon - 122002.
3. Sh. Rohan Mahajan, (Director),
having address at :
Plot No. 69, Basement,
Sector-40, Urban Estate,
Gurgaon - 122002.
.... Defendants.
Date of institution : 10.08.2018
Date of reserving Judgment : 26.07.2022
Date of decision : 30.08.2022
SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY
INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES FOR INFRINGEMENT OF
COPYRIGHT.
Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 2 of 41
M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this Judgment, I shall decide the suit file by plaintiff for permanent, mandatory injunction and damages for infringement of copyright.
2. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff is a public limited company and Sh. Sanjeev Gala is the duly authorized person who was appointed vide resolution dated 7.2.2018.
3. It is further stated that plaintiff company is an educational syllabus based content provider in the print and digital medium. The plaintiff is also manufacturer of stationary and publisher of books across various genres and the plaintiff has acquired reputation and goodwill in the aforesaid business and have spent huge amount of money, time and manpower in the business since 1969.
4. It is further stated that the plaintiff, over the decades, has emerged as preferred name for educational products sold under the branch name of 'Navneet', 'Vikas', 'Gala', 'Grafalco' and 'FfUuNn' among teachers and students in India. The plaintiff has acquired copyright under the Copyright Act in the texts included in the literary works published by its GRAFALCO Division under the different titles for pre-school children i.e. 'Grafalco Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 3 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. Pre-School ABC Picture Book' , 'Grafalco Pre-School Patterns', 'Grafalco Pre-School Phonic Primer Reader', 'Grafalco Pre- School Phonic Primer Activity (A), 'Grafalco Pre-School Phonic Primer Activity (B)', 'Phonic Primer Activity (C)', 'Grafalco Pre-School Rhymes & Songs (A)', 'Grafalco Pre-School Rhymes & Songs (B)', 'Grafalco Pre-School Numbers (1-10)', 'Grafalco Pre-School Numbers (1-20)', 'Grafalco Pre-School Numbers (1-
50)' , 'Grafalco Pre-School Numbers (1-100)', 'Grafalco Pre- School GK & Conversation A', 'Grafalco Pre-School GK & Conversation B', 'Grafalco Pre-School Drawing A', 'Grafalco Pre-School Drawing B', 'Grafalco Pre-School Craft A', 'Grafalco Pre-School Craft B', 'Grafalco Pre-School Writing Hand A' , 'Grafalco Pre-School Writing Hand B', 'Grafalco Pre-School Cursive Hand A', 'Grafalco Pre-School Cursive Hand B', 'Grafalco Pre-School Print Hand A', 'Grafalco Pre-School Print Hand B', 'Grafalco Pre-School Hindi Writing Alphabets', 'Grafalco Pre-School Hindi Reader Introductory', 'Grafalco Pre- School Big Capital Letters', 'GRAFALCO Pre-School Numbers (1 to 100)" ', 'Grafalco Pre-School Cursive Capital & Small Letter', 'Print Capital & Small Letter', 'Grafalco Pre-School Numbers (0 to 9)', 'Grafalco Pre-School Reader Sooty & Spot', 'Grafalco Pre-School Reader Raja & Rani', 'Grafalco Pre-School Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 4 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. Phonic 2 Picture Book', 'Grafalco Pre-School Phonic 3 Picture Book', 'Grafalco Pre-School Picture Dictionary', 'Grafalco Pre- School English Activity Book A', 'Grafalco Pre-School English Activity Book B', 'Grafalco Pre-School Maths Activity Book A', 'Grafalco Pre-School Maths Activity Book B','Grafalco Pre- School EVS Activity Book-A', 'Grafalco Pre-School EVS Activity Book B', 'Grafalco Pre-School Charts', 'Grafalco Pre- School Drawing A', 'Grafalco Pre-School Holiday Activity O', 'Grafalco Pre-School Holiday Activity A', 'Grafalco Pre-School Holiday Activity B', 'Grafalco Pre-School Hindi Varnamala Chitravali', 'Grafalco Pre-School Hindi Bade Akshar (Swar)', 'Grafalco Pre-School Hindi Bade Akshar (Vyanjan)', 'Grafalco Pre-School Hindi Shabd Pravesh', 'Grafalco Pre-School Hindi Shabd Lekhan', 'Grafalco Pre-School Hindi Reader 1', 'Grafalco Pre-School Hindi Shishugeet' and 'Grafalco Pre-School Phonic Primer Activity Cursive'. (Herein referred to as "Plaintiff's Books") The texts contained in these books were originally authored by Sh. Sanjeev Gala who has been closely associated with the Plaintiff and assigned his copyright in the aforesaid works in the favour of the Plaintiff.
5. It is further stated that the plaintiff has been publishing books GRAFALCO division since 2010 and the books Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 5 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. are specially designed by the plaintiff for small children particularly in the age group of 3-5 years and each of the book is unique in its nature and contain user friendly pattern and / or layout for children which is supposed to make learning and writing languages and numbers lucid and simple for the children
6. It is further stated that the defendant is a body incorporated and an educational publisher which appears to be engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling books for children.
7. It is further stated that the plaintiff is the owner of the copyright in the text included in " Grafaclo Print Capital letters"fromly known as " Grafaclo Pre School Print Hand A"
vide diary no. 2093/2018-CO/L.
8. It is further stated that defendants are infringing the copyright in the literary text of the plaintiff book namely "Grafaclo Print Capital letters" by selling book named as "
BALSAM Capital Letters.
9. It is further stated that the defendants have copied the design, layout and sequence of the patterns given in the Plaintiff's book across their entire book. The defendants book contains the same number of pages i.e. 88 and have copied the plaintiff's book from page to page. The comparison of the work of the plaintiff and the impugned work of the defendants to prove Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 6 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. and establish the violation of copy right is as under :-
1. Pages 2-4 of the impugned book of the defendants are an obvious copy of the pages 2-4 of the plaintiff's book which shows certain similar dotted patterns along with same design, layout and gap between the lines. Sequence of patterns and title is also identical to that of the plaintiff's book.
2. Pages 5, 7, 9 and 11 of the impugned book of the defendants are a deliberate copy of pages 5, 7, 9 and 11 of plaintiff's book which contains various letters for children's practice. The layout and sequence of the letters are also identical and the defendants have copied the design and layout of the pages of plaintiff's book in such a way that the defendants have used one bold letter, 11 dotted letters and left 12 blank spaces for practice purposes just like the plaintiff.
Also, the defendants have used same object such as 'Aeroplane' to denote letter 'A' as used by the plaintiff.
3. Pages 6, 8, 10 and 12 of the impugned book of the defendants are a deliberate copy of the Pages 6, 8, 10 and 12 of plaintiff's book having same title "Practice" which contains various letters for children's practice. The defendants have used one bold letter, 7 dotted letters and left 24 blank spaces for practice purposes just like the plaintiff.
4. Page 13 of the impugned book of the defendants is a deliberate copy of the page 13 of plaintiff's book having same Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 7 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. title 'Practice'. The defendants have used 4 bold letters, 4 dotted letters and left 24 blank spaces for children's practice which is a copy of the plaintiff's book.
5. Page 14 of the impugned book of the defendants is a deliberate copy of the Page 14 of plaintiff's book having same title 'Practice'. The defendants have used 4 bold letters and left 28 blank spaces for children's practice just like the plaintiff.
6. Pages 15, 17, 19 and 21 of the impugned book of the defendants are a deliberate copy of the pages 15, 17, 19 and 21 of plaintiff's book. The layout and sequence of the letters of defendant's book are identical to the layout and sequence of the letters given in the pages of the plaintiff's book. The defendants have used one bold letter, 11 dotted letters and left 12 blank spaces for practice purposes just like the plaintiff.
7. Pages 16, 18, 20 and 22 of the impugned book of the defendants are a deliberate copy of the pages 16, 18, 20 and 22 of plaintiff's book having same title "Practice". The defendants have used one bold letter, 7 dotted letters and left 24 blank spaces for practice purposes just like the plaintiff.
8. Page 23 of the impugned book of the defendants is a deliberate copy of the page 23 of plaintiff's book having same title 'Practice'. The defendants have used 4 bold letters, 4 dotted letters and left 24 blank spaces for children's practice Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 8 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. which is a copy of the plaintiff's book.
9. Page 24 of the impugned book of the defendants is a deliberate copy of the Page 24 of plaintiff's book having same title 'Practice'. The defendants have used 4 bold letters and left 28 blank spaces for children's practice just like the plaintiff.
10. Pages 28, 30, 32 and 34 of the impugned book of the defendants are a deliberate copy of the pages 28, 30, 32 and 34 of plaintiff's book which contains various letters for children's practice. The layout and sequence of the letters in the said pages of the defendant's book are identical to the pages of the plaintiff's book and defendants have used one bold letter, 11 dotted letters and left 12 blank spaces for practice purposes just like the plaintiff and the defendants have copied used same object such as 'King' to denote letter 'K'.
11. Pages 29, 31, 33 and 35 of the impugned book of the defendants are a deliberate copy of the Pages 29, 31, 33 and 35 of plaintiff's book having same title "Practice". The defendants have used one bold letter, 7 dotted letters and left 24 blank spaces for practice purposes just like the plaintiff.
12. Page 36 of the impugned book of the defendants is a deliberate copy of the Page 36 of plaintiff's book having same title 'Practice'. The defendants have used 4 bold letters, 4 Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 9 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. dotted letters and left 24 blank spaces for children's practice which is a copy of the plaintiff's book.
13. Page 37 of the impugned book of the defendants is a deliberate copy of the Page 37 of plaintiff's book having same title 'Practice'. The defendants have have used 4 bold letters and left 28 blank spaces for children's practice just like the plaintiff.
14. Pages 38, 40, 42 and 44 of the impugned book of the defendants are a deliberate copy of the Pages 38, 40, 42 and 44 of plaintiff's book which contains various letters for children's practice. The layout and sequence of the letters given in the pages of defendant's book are identical to the pages of the plaintiff's book. The defendants have used one bold letter, 11 dotted letters and left 12 blank spaces for practice purposes just like the plaintiff. Also, The defendants have used same object such as 'Nest' to denote letter 'N' and 'Parrot' to denote letter 'P' as used by the plaintiff. Further, the blank box given at the top of the page for drawing any picture is also copied from the plaintiff's book.
15. Pages 39, 41, 43 and 45 of the impugned book of the defendants are a deliberate copy of the Pages 39, 41, 43 and 45 of plaintiff's book having same title "Practice". The defendants have used one bold letter, 7 dotted letters and left 24 blank spaces for practice purposes just like the plaintiff. Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 10 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
16. Page 46 of the impugned book of the defendants is a deliberate copy of the Page 46 of plaintiff's book having same title 'Practice'. The defendants have used 4 bold letters, 4 dotted letters and left 24 blank spaces for children's practice which is a copy of the plaintiff's book.
17. Page 47 of the impugned book of the defendants is a deliberate copy of the Page 47 of plaintiff's book having same title 'Practice'. The defendants have used 4 bold letters and left 28 blank spaces for children's practice just like the plaintiff.
18. Page 48 of the impugned book of the defendant is a deliberate copy of the page 48 of plaintiff's book having same title "write the correct capital letter" as it contains certain pictures and children are supposed to write the first letter of the corresponding picture given. The concept, design and layout of the page of defendant's book are identical to that of plaintiff's book. Further, out of 8 objects the defendants have copied 3 objects from plaintiff's book such as parrot, nest and king.
19. Page 49 of the impugned book of the defendant is a deliberate copy of the page 49 of plaintiff's book where children are supposed to match the letters with the pictures given. The concept, design, style, layout and sequence of the letters and title are identical to that of plaintiff's book. Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 11 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. Further, out of 8 objects the defendants have copied 3 objects from plaintiff's book such as parrot, nest and king.
20. Page 50 of the impugned book of the defendants is a deliberate copy of the page 50 of plaintiff's book where children are supposed to circle the correct letters compatible with the picture. The design, style, concept, layout and title of the pages are identical to the title "Circle the correct Capital letter" as given in the plaintiff's book. Moreover, the sets of letters such as JKL, IMP, OPM, LJP, MOK, JKN and IKP are also copied from the plaintiff's book.
21. Pages 51, 53, 55, 57 and 59 of the impugned book of the defendants are a deliberate copy of the Pages 51, 53, 55, 57 and 59 of plaintiff's book which contains various letters for children's practice. The layout and sequence of the letters given in the pages of the impugned book of the defendants are identical to that of plaintiff's book. The defendants have used one bold letter, 11 dotted letters and left 12 blank spaces for practice purposes just like the plaintiff and also used same objects such as 'Queen' to denote letter 'Q', 'Rabbit' to denote letter 'R' and 'Tiger' to denote letter 'T' as used by the plaintiff. Further, the blank box given at the top of the page for drawing any picture is also copied from the plaintiff's book.
22. Pages 52, 54, 56, 58 and 60 of the impugned book of the Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 12 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. defendants are a deliberate copy of the pages 52, 54, 56, 58 and 60 of plaintiff's book having same title "Practice". The defendants have used one bold letter, 7 dotted letters and left 24 blank spaces for practice purposes just like the plaintiff.
23. Page 61 of the impugned book of the defendants is a deliberate copy of the page 61 of plaintiff's book having same title 'Practice'. The defendants have used 5 bold letters, 5 dotted letters and left 30 blank spaces for children's practice which is a copy of the plaintiff's book. Also, the defendants have used the exact same layout that is set of 5 letters, as used in the plaintiff's book.
24. Page 62 of the impugned book of the defendants is a deliberate copy of the page 62 of plaintiff's book having same title 'Practice'. The defendants have used 5 bold letters and left 35 blank spaces for children's practice just like the plaintiff. Further, the defendant has used the exact same layout that is set of 5 letters, as used in the plaintiff's book.
25. Pages 63, 65, 67, 69 and 71 of the impugned book of the defendants are a deliberate copy of the pages 63, 65, 67, 69 and 71 of plaintiff's book which contains various letters for children's practice. The layout and sequence of the letters given in the pages of the defendant's book are identical to that of plaintiff's book. The defendants have used one bold letter, 11 dotted letters and left 12 blank spaces for practice Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 13 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. purposes just like the plaintiff. Also, the defendants have used same objects such as 'Vulture' to denote letter 'V', 'Yak' to denote letter 'Y' and 'Zebra' to denote letter 'Z' as used by the plaintiff.
26. Pages 64, 66, 68, 70 and 72 of the impugned book of the defendants are a deliberate copy of the pages 64, 66, 68, 70 and 72 of plaintiff's book having same title "Practice". The defendants have used one bold letter, 7 dotted letters and left 24 blank spaces for practice purposes just like the plaintiff.
27. Page 73 of the impugned book of the defendants is a deliberate copy of the page 73 of plaintiff's book having same title 'Practice'. The defendants have used 5 bold letters, 5 dotted letters and left 30 blank spaces for children's practice which is a copy of the plaintiff's book. The defendants have used the exact same layout that is set of 5 letters, as used in the plaintiff's book.
28. Page 74 of the impugned book of the defendants is a deliberate copy of the Page 74 of plaintiff's book having same title 'Practice'. The defendants have used 5 bold letters and left 35 blank spaces for children's practice just like the plaintiff. The defendants have exactly copied the layout of the plaintiff's book.
29. Page 75 of the impugned book of the defendants is a deliberate copy of the Page 75 of plaintiff's book having same Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 14 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. title "write the correct capital letter" as it contains certain pictures and children are supposed to write the first letter of the corresponding picture given. The concept, design and layout of the page of the defendant's book are identical to that of plaintiff's book. Also, out 8 the defendants have copied 5 objects from plaintiff's book such as vulture, rabbit, tiger, yak, and queen.
30. Page 76 of the book of you the above is a deliberate copy of the page 76 of plaintiff's book where children are supposed to match the letters with the pictures given. The concept, design, style, layout, sequence and title of the letters of defendant's book are identical to that of plaintiff's book. Further, out of 10 the defendants have copied 6 objects from plaintiff's book such as vulture, rabbit, tiger, yak, zebra and queen.
31. Page 77 of the impugned book of the defendants is a deliberate copy of the page 77 of plaintiff's book where children are supposed to circle the correct letters compatible with the picture. The design, style, concept, layout of the pages and title are identical as given in the plaintiff's book. Moreover, the sets of letters such as ZWV, TXY, ZVS, QUY, XRQ, WTZ, VQS and TYR are also copied from the plaintiff's book.
32. Pages 78-81 of the impugned book of the defendants are Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 15 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. deliberate copy of the Pages 78-81 of plaintiff's book having same title 'Practice'. The defendants have used 4 bold letters, 4 dotted letters and left 24 blank spaces for children's practice just like the plaintiff.
33. Pages 82-83 of the impugned book of the defendants are deliberate copy of the Pages 82-83 of plaintiff's book having same title 'Practice'. The defendants have used 5 bold letters, 5 dotted letters and left 30 blank spaces for children's practice just like the plaintiff.
34. Page 84 of the impugned book of the defendants is an obvious copy of the Page 84 of plaintiff's book which contains Alphabets A-Z for children's practice. The design, layout, and sequence of the letters contained in the pages of the impugned book of the defendants are similar to that of plaintiff's book. Moreover, the title of the page of the impugned book of the defendants is also identical to the title "Practice A-Z" as given in the plaintiff's book.
35. Pages 85-86 of the impugned book of the defendants are an obvious copy of the Pages 85-86 of plaintiff's book which contains blank pages for writing Alphabets A-Z for practice purpose. The design and layout of the pages of the impugned book of the defendants are identical to the design and layout of the pages of the plaintiff's book. Moreover, the title of the pages of the impugned book of the defendants is also identical Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 16 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. to the title "Write A-Z" as given in the plaintiff's book. Further, the defendants have left 32 blank spaces as given in the plaintiff's book.
36. Pages 87-88 of the impugned book of the defendants are an obvious copy of the Pages 87-88 of plaintiff's book which contains activities namely "Fill in the missing capital letters." Not only is the title of the activity but also the design and layout of the pages exactly copied from the plaintiff's book.
10. It is further stated that the defendants have copies the distinctive design and layout / pattern / sequence of the plaintiff's book with the sole malafide intention to get unfair financial benefits and to gain from the work of plaintiff and had caused continuous financial losses, injury and damages to the plaintiff and the customers are purchasing the book of the defendants under the belief that it is the work of plaintiff. Thus, the defendants are causing great financial losses, injury and damages to the plaintiff and passing off their work under the copyright of the plaintiff by creating the deception and confusion in the minds of customers. It is further stated that the resemblance is more than substantial, uncanny and cannot be the result of anything but deliberate and slavish imitation with a view to trade upon the hard work of the plaintiff and its team.
Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 17 of 41
M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
11. It is further stated that as per Section 55 of the Copyright Act, the plaintiff by virtue of being the owner of copyright in the texts of the book is entitled to all such remedies by way of injunction, damages, accounts and otherwise as are or may be conferred by law for the infringement of the copyright. As per Section 58 of the Copyright Act, the plaintiff is entitled to receive all the infringed copies of the work in which copyright of the plaintiff subsists and all plates, negatives used or intended to be used for the production of such infringed copies, as the same are the property of the plaintiff.
12. The plaintiff has sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, its directors, partners or proprietors as the case may be, their principal officers, servants and agents, distributors, licensees, franchisees, stockist, sub- agents and all others acting on their behalf, from manufacturing, selling, importing, exporting, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in any manner using the plaintiff's original work and protected under the Copyright Act. Plaintiff has sought further relief of passing of order for delivery of unsold inventory of infringed books and publications, containing the reproduced and infringing texts copied from GRAFALCO's prior published literary work titled"" Grafaclo Print Capital Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 18 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. letters""and all plates used or intended to be used for the production of such infringing copies. He further sought relief of passing of order for delivery of a true and faithful statement of accounts showing full details of the quantity and value of the books and publications, carrying infringing texts and furnishing a full list of the dealers, distributors, and stockiest through whom the defendant have been passing-off its goods. Plaintiff has further sought a decree of damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- for illegal profits earned by the defendants on account of their illegal activities and for the loss caused to the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff.
13. Vide order dated 10.8.2018, ex-parte interim injunction was passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant restraining the defendants from selling or dealing with the aforesaid book.
14. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendants and the defendants contested the suit by filing the written statement. Defendants have also filed an application under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement and the said application was allowed vide order dated 10.1.2020 subject to cost of Rs. 20,000/- but since the defendants have not paid the cost therefore, my Ld. Predecessor vide order Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 19 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. dated 4.2.2021 had ordered that the written statement be taken off record probably for the reason that the defendants have not paid the cost.
15. Since the defendants' written statement is not on record therefore, same cannot be discussed.
16. Since there was no WS therefore no issues were framed and the case for plaintiff's evidence straightaway.
17. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff has examined four witnesses i.e. Sh. Deepak Sharma, Area Sales Officer as PW1; Sh. Shambhoo Negi, Sales Admin Officer as PW2; Sh. Hemal Gala as PW3 and Sh. Varun Verma from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry as PW4. All the PWs were cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendants.
18. Since the written statement is not on record therefore, the defendants did not prefer to lead any evidence.
19. Arguments have been heard from Ms. Stuti Wason, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff only as Ld. Counsel for the defendants did not come to address arguments and even did not filed written submissions despite giving opportunity.
20. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that there is similarity between the books of plaintiff and books of defendants that the ordinary public can get confused that it is purchasing the Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 20 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. books of plaintiff therefore, the defendants are required to be restrained from selling or publishing the aforesaid books in any manner.
21. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record.
22. The onus is upon the plaintiff to prove that the books published by the plaintiff and defendant's book 1-100 are similar or deceptively similar that it cause confusion in the mind of public that they are purchasing the books of the plaintiff. In order to prove its case, though plaintiff have examined 4 witnesses.
23. PW1 Sh. Deepak Sharma who in his testimony led through affidavit Ex. PW1/A has deposed that the plaintiff company is publishing educational, children and general books for more than five decades and in March, 2018, and plaintiff is owner of copy rights in the book " GRAFALCO Pre-School Print Capital Letters" formerly known as "GRAFALCO Pre-School Print Hand A". He further deposed that it came to know that the defendants are selling book "BALSAM CAPITAL LETTERS FOR CHILDREN" with in the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi. The books of the defendant company had a design / layout / sequence / pattern which are identical and / or deceptively similar to that of plaintiff's book. And defendants have not only copied Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 21 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. the unique design sequence format layout and pattern of plaintiff book but also title and numer of pages of the book, thus the defendants are infringing the copyright of the plaintiff's book.
24. PW1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant and in his cross examination, PW1 has stated that he has seen the book of the defendant at a school during his regular visit while providing / submitting samples of the books of plaintiff but he cannot tell the name of the school where he saw the books of the defendant. He cannot tell the name of teacher who has told him about the books of defendant. He is not a special investigator appointed by company to analyze the book. He denied the suggestion that book of the nature, which are subject matter of the suit have no distinguishable feature vis a vis copy right.
25. The plaintiff has also examined Sh. Shambhoo Negi its Sale Admin Officer officer as PW2. who in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A has deposed that on visible comparison of the contents of the work of plaintiff with the impugned work of the defendant proves that the defendants book has not only virtually replicated the title of the plaintiff's book but has also copied the distinctive design and layout / pattern / sequence of the plaintiff's book with the sole malafide intention to get the undue, unjust and unfair financial benefit, advantage and gain Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 22 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. from the work of the plaintiff and causing continuous financial losses. He was also cross examined by the counsel for the defendants.
PW2 in his cross examination has deposed that he has not done any special training as an investigators of copyright, trade mark etc. He do not remember when visible comparison of books was done.
26. PW3 Sh. Hemal Gala who in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW3/A has deposed the same facts which have been mentioned by the plaintiff in the plaint. PW3 has also relied upon the following documents :-
1. Copy of official ID card as Ex. PW3/1.
2. Print out of invoices as Ex. PW3/2 (Colly.).
3. Original book of plaintiff as Ex. PW3/3.
4. Book of defendant as Ex. PW3/4.
5. Copy of copyright registration detail and certificate of plaintiff book as Ex. PW3/5 (Colly.).
6. Office copy of legal notice dated 21.3.2018 along with postal receipts and tracking report as Ex. PW3/6 (Colly.).
7. Office copy of reminder notice dated 19.4.2018 along with postal receipts and tracking report as Ex. PW3/7 (Colly.).
8. Copy of assignment deed dated 1.4.2017 as Ex. PW3/8.Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 23 of 41
M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
27. In his cross examination, he stated that there is no document on judicial record to show that any copy of defendant's book has been purchased within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. He has denied the suggestion that the office of the plaintiff is 2E/23, Orien Plaza, 2nd Floor, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi is the branch office and not the principal office of the plaintiff. With respect to the comparison of the books, he admitted that there is no other sequence or pattern of writing numerals and alphabets than what has been known to the world since generations and voluntarily stated that the plaintiff is now claiming any copyright in the letters or numbers as they are in public domain but the plaintiff is claiming its exclusive right / copyright in the way of presentation of its various books, which are the subject matter of the suit. In response to the question that the name of defendant / publisher has been prominently / conspicuously written on the title page of each book so that there is no chance of anybody getting confused or waylaid into buying a book of defendant under the impression that he is buying a book of the plaintiff, he denied the suggestion. He stated that an intending buyer may not read word Balsam but may read title of book like Number 1-100, big small lettersand may be confused Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 24 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. and make purchase of the book of defendant instead of plaintiff.
28. PW4 Sh. Varun Verma is the official from Copy Rights Office. Ministry of Commerce and Industries. He has has proved his authority letter as EXPW4/1, the copyright registration of book of plaintiff as Ex. PW4/2 and FORM XIV application for registration of copy right as Ex. PW4/3 (colly).
29. From the testimony of PW 1 to 4 it is evident that defendants have given no suggestion that plaintiff is not the copy right owner of book in question or not publishing the same since 2009, hence testimony of PW1 to PW4 remained unchallenged to that aspect. Further there is no suggestion to PW1 to 3 that defendant has not published it book Balsam Capital Letters. Hence said aspect is also remained unchallenged.
30. Now only question left to be answered is whether plaintiff work is original or not to have copy right over the same. and whether defendants through its book violated the said copy right or not.
31. What is original has been discussed in Eastern Book Company & Ors vs D.B. Modak & Anr Appeal (civil) 6472 of 2004 passed by Supreme Court on 12 December, 2007 .
"16. Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. Willim Hill (Football) Ltd., [1964] 1 WLR 273 (HL), is a case where the concept of originality was considered on the basis of skill, judgment and/or labour in the context of Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 25 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
compilation. Since 1951 the respondents, who were well- known bookmakers, had sent their customers each week fixed odds football betting coupons arranged in a certain general form. In 1959 the appellants, who were also bookmakers, started sending out coupons closely resembling the respondents coupons. A coupon was a sheet of paper on which were printed several lists of forthcoming matches. Beside each list were columns of squares on which the punter could indicate his forecast of the result of each match. Some of the lists included all the matches to be played; others included only a selection of them. The bets varied in character. A great variety of bets was offered and the odds offered differed widely from 5-2 to 20,000-1. The respondents coupon contained 16 lists, each with an appropriate name. The appellants coupon, which contained 15 lists, closely resembled the respondents. The lists offered by the appellants were almost identical with those offered by the respondents in their corresponding lists. The respondents brought action claiming copyright in the coupons. The House of Lords was called upon to determine whether or to what extent copyright attached to these coupons. The respondents said that a coupon must be regarded as a single work and that as such it was protected by copyright. The appellants sought to dissect the coupon. It was contended by the respondents that there had been a breach of copyright by the appellants, since the respondents compilation, which must be regarded as a single work, was original and protected by copyright and the part taken by the appellants from the respondents work was substantial. It did not follow that because the fragments of the compilation, taken separately, would not be copyright, the whole could not be copyright. It was submitted by the appellants that the derivative work of the respondents not being original, no copyright can be claimed and the inputs put, if considered separately, are of insignificant value and thus the respondents could not claim copyright.
The word `original does not mean that the work must be the expression of original or inventive thought. Copyright Acts are not concerned with the originality of ideas, but with the expression of thought, and in the case of literary work, with the expression of thought in print or writing. The originality which is required relates to the expression of the thought. But the Act does not require that the expression must be in an Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 26 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
original or novel form, but that the work must not be copied from another work - that it should originate from the author; and as regards compilation, originality is a matter of degree depending on the amount of skill, judgment or labour that has been involved in making the compilation. The words literary work cover work which is expressed in print or writing irrespective of the question whether the quality or style is high. The commonplace matter put together or arranged without the exercise of more than negligible work, labour and skill in making the selection will not be entitled to copyright. The word original does not demand original or inventive thought, but only that the work should not be copied but should originate from the author. In deciding, therefore, whether a work in the nature of a compilation is original, it is wrong to consider individual parts of it apart from the whole. For many compilations have nothing original in their parts, yet the sum total of the compilation may be original. In such cases the courts have looked to see whether the compilation of the unoriginal material called for work or skill or expense. If it did, it is entitled to be considered original and to be protected against those who wish to steal the fruits of the work or skill or expense by copying it without taking the trouble to compile it themselves. In each case, it is a question of degree whether the labour or skill or ingenuity or expense involved in the compilation is sufficient to warrant a claim to originality in a compilation.
17. While considering the question whether the copyright protection is available to the work created as a whole or the fragment of the work would be considered piecemeal and individually apart from the whole, the House of Lords said as under:
. One test may be whether the part which he has taken is novel or striking, or is merely a commonplace arrangement of ordinary words or well-known data. So it may sometimes be a convenient short cut to ask whether the part taken could by itself be the subject of copyright. But, in my view, that is only a short cut, and the more correct approach is first to determine whether the plaintiffs work as a whole is `original and protected by copyright, and then to inquire whether the part taken by the defendant is substantial.
A wrong result can easily be reached if one begins by dissecting the plaintiffs work and asking, could section A be the subject of copyright if it stood by itself, could Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 27 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
section B be protected if it stood by itself, and so on. To my mind, it does not follow that, because the fragments taken separately would not be copyright, therefore, the whole cannot be. ﾵ
32. In R. G. Anand Vs. M/s. Delux Films & Ors., 1978 AIR 1613, 1979 SCR (1) 218 Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with of infringement of copy right held that :
"***Thus, on a careful consideration and elucida- tion of the various authorities and the case law on the subject discussed above, the following proposi- tions emerge:
1. There can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts and violation of the copyright in such cases is con-
fined to the form, manner and arrangement and ex- pression of the idea by the author of the copyright work.
2. Where the same idea is being developed in a dif- ferent manner, it is manifest that the source being common, similarities are bound to occur. In such a case the courts should determine whether or not the similarities are on fundamental or substantial as- pects of the mode of expression adopted in the copy- righted work. If the defendants work is nothing but a literal imitation of the copyrighted work with some variations here and there it would amount to viola- tion of the copyright. In other words, in order to be Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 28 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
actionable the copy must be a substantial and mate- rial one which at once leads to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty of an act of piracy.
3. One of the surest and the safest test to determine whether or not there has been a violation of copy- right is to seeing the reader, spectator or the viewer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original.
4. Where the theme is the same but is presented and treated differently so that the subsequent work be- comes a completely new work, no question of viola- tion of copyright arises.
5. Where however apart from the similarities ap- pearing in the two works there are also material and broad dissimilarities which negative the intention to copy the original and the coincidences appearing in the two works are clearly incidental no infringement of the copyright comes into existence.
6. As a violation of copyright amounts to an act of piracy it must be proved by clear and cogent evi- dence after applying the various tests laid down by the case law discussed above.
7. Where however the question is of the violation of the copyright of stage play by a film producer or a Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 29 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
Director the task of the plaintiff becomes more difficult to prove piracy. It is manifest that unlike a stage play a film has a much broader prospective, a wider field and a bigger background where the defendants can by introducing a variety of incidents give a colour and complexion different from the manner in which the copyrighted work has expressed the idea. Even so, if the viewer after seeing the film gets a totality of impression that the film is by and large a copy of the original play, violation of the copyright may be said to be proved".
33. In Syndicate Of The Press Vs. B.D. Bhandari & Anr. RFA (OS) No. 21 of 2009 decided on 3 August, 2011 by Divi- sion bench, our own Hon'ble High Court in appeal against the dismissal of suit by single bench of High Court regarding grant of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants therein (re- spondents in this appeal) from selling books published by them and titled MBD English Guide B.A./B.Sc./B.COM Part I (Guru Nanak Dev University), MBD English Guide B.A./B.Sc./B.COM Part II (Guru Nanak Dev University) and MBD English Guide B.A./B.Sc./B.COM Part III (Guru Nanak Dev University has ob- served that:
"11. "In India this copyright protection has been provided under Section 13 of the Act. It reads as Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 30 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
under:
"13. Works in which copyright subsists.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this section and the other provisions of this Act, copyright shall subsist throughout India in the following classes of works, that is to say,-
(a) Original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works;
(b) Cinematograph films; and
(c) Records.‖
12. The legislative text, which has the bearing upon the issue involved therein, is "ORIGINAL LITRERARY". In order to reach at any conclusion in this regard, it is necessary to examine the requirement of originality under abovementioned Section and concerned tests developed under the IPR jurisprudence by Indian as well as foreign authorities and the courts.
13. Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed.) defines originality as ―the quality or state of being the product of independent creation and having a minimum degree of creativity.‖ It further says that although ―originality is a requirement for copyright protection but this is a lesser standard than that of novelty in patent law.‖ Justice Frank in Alfred Bell & Co. Vs. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc., [191 F .2d 99, 102 (2nd Cir . 1951)] observed that ―original‖ in reference to a copyrighted work means that the particular work ‗owes it origin to the Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 31 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
author.' No large measure of novelty is necessary.‖ J A L Sterling in his celebrated work titled ―World Copyright Law‖ clearly summaries the English position on the issue of originality as below:
―Although a number of interpretations have been given to the term, there are certain points on which agreement seems to have been firmly established. Primary among these points are two basic concepts, First that the work must not be merely a copy of a previous work, and secondly that the work is the result of the investment of individual skill, judgment or labour‖ [ Page 303, 2nd ed.]‖
14. In the United States, originality is the constitutional requirement under the copyright clause of the constitution and is a sine qua non of the copyrightability. Earlier, in the United States, the judicial trend, to trace out the elements of originality in a given work was to focus on the "Sweat of the brow" test or the industriousness.
However, there has been a consistent shift from this approach towards a test based on "creativity". Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), is a glaring example of this shift wherein the Supreme Court of the United States was categorical to observe that ―as a constitutional matter, copyright protects only those constituent elements of a work that possess more than a de minimis quantum of creativity.‖
15. The Supreme Court of Canada in the matter of Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 32 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
CCH Canadian Ltd. Vs. Law Society of Upper Canada 2004 (1) SCR 339 (Canada) has noticed the competing views on the meaning of ―original‖ in copyright law wherein some courts have held that a work which has originated from an author and is more than a mere copy of a work, is sufficient to give copyright.
16. The Supreme Court of India has found many occasions to reiterate that the test of originality in India is same as in the UK which is based on the "skill, judgment and labour". In Eastern Book Company and Ors. Vs. D.B. Modak and Anr.( AIR 2008 SC 809), the Indian Apex court was categorical to observe that:
―Copyrighted material is that what is created by the author by his own skill, labour and investment of capital, maybe it is a derivative work which gives a flavour of creativity.‖
17. This requirement of originality, under the Copyright Act, 1957, is that of expression and not of idea. In University of London Press Limited v. University Tutorial Press Limited [1916] 2 Ch 601, J. Peterson observed that:
―The word ―original‖ does not in this connection mean that the work must be the expression of original or innovative thought. Copyright Acts are not concerned with the originality of ideas, but with the expression of thought. The originality which is required relates to the expression of thoughts. But Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 33 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
the Act doesn't require that the expression must be in the original or novel form, but that the work must not be copied from another's work- that it must originate from the author.‖
18. The abovementioned UK approach has become a standard all over the globe in the process of judicial determination regarding whether a work is copyrightable or not. The Indian Supreme Court, in Eastern Book Company and Ors. (supra) cited the aforementioned judgment with approval and categorically observed that ―The Copyright Act is not concerned with the original idea but with the expression of thought".
34. Now reverting back to the case, to adjudicate upon the issue as to whether the defendants have violated the copy right of the plaintiff it is to be seen whether their exist copyright in the work of the plaintiff one need to view it from two perspectives. Firstly, whether there can be copy rights on the Alphabets A to Z. Secondly whether the plaintiff work satisfies the originate from the author test coupled with the requirement of skill, judgment and labour and thirdly, whether the defendant book which is alleged contains the same or similar material that it cause deceptive in the mind of its reader that he / she is reading the book of the plaintiff and thus infringing copy right of plaintiff book.
35. On perusal of plaintiff and defendants books it is evident that both books are basically on the subjects to teach to the Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 34 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. children's how to write alphabet in capital letters and what words made from said alphabet, with the help of pictures. There can be no copy right in alphabet A to Z which is the basic theme of plaintiff book. In his cross examination PW3 has admitted that there is no other sequence or pattern of writing alphabets than what has been known to the world since generation. Though PW3 has voluntarily deposed that plaintiff is not claiming any copy rights in the letters or numbers but plaintiff is claiming exclusive rights/ copy right in the way of presentation of its various books, which are subjects matters of the suit. Nothing is mentioned in the testimony of PW3 how the presentation in plaintiff book is original. The plaintiff in its book teach how to write A to Z & then there is picture against each alphabet like Aeroplane against the alphabet A, Bus against the alphabet B and Car against the alphabet C and it goes on till Z. The plaintiff book "Grafalco Pre-School Print capital letters page 2 to 4 are containing lines are drawn in strainght, slanting zigzag and other different pattern to teach so that they could learn to write alphabet , page 5 to 21 is concerned each page is practice page alphabet A to H, page 28 to 45 for writing alphabet I to P, page 51 to 71 for writing alphabet Q to Z respectively and pictures of Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 35 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. an item against each word to teach what word can be made from said apphabet, , where as page no. 23, 24, 46, 47,61, 62, 73 and 74 is practice page to practice different alphabet on the same page, page no. 25,48 and 75 is to write alphabet after seeing the pictures, page no. 26, 49 and 76 is to match the letter with pictures and page no. 27, 50 and 77 is to circle the correct alphabet after identifying from pictures.
36. The question is whether arranging the alphabet in such formats and sequences as mention above can be said to be original works of plaintiff. In my view answers would be no as in my view from generation alphabet are taught to be write and identified in the same manners as given in this book. Further identifying the alphabet with the help of pictures is also an age old practice passing on since generation. hence there can be no copy rights in it as it would hampers learning. Hence there is no originality in the book of plaintiff.
37. Now coming to third question whether defendant book violate the copy rights of plaintiff books i.e. it is similar or deceptively similar of plaintiff book. On comparison of books of plaintiff and defendants, I found following similarities / dis- similarities : -
Page Plaintiff's book Defendants' book Remarks Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 36 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
Number
Cover Name of the book Balsam capital PExcept the used of
page of the plaintiff is Letters capital letters there
GRAFALCO Pre is no similarity in
School Print the cover page
Capital Letters books of plaintiff
and GRAFALCO and defendant book.
Pre School Print Pictures on plaintiff
Hand A . book and defendant
book are different
Page 1 Written title of the Written title of the Page is dis-similar.
plaintiff book defendant book and
picture of tadpole
carrying flag on
which ABC is
written
Page 1 There is a box for There is no box for Page is dis-similar.
writing name, roll writing name of In the book of
number, division, child etc., defendant,
subject and school photograph at the
name etc. center of the page
on which there are
children.
Page 2, Heading- pattern Heading- pattern Pattern to draw line
and 3 and then different then different line and curve is
line pattern line pattern line straight different as in
straight line line zigzag slanting, plaintiff book line
zigzag slanting, curve in different (I) pattern is used
curve in different way, etc., in book and defendant book
way, etc., in book pre capital letter dot(.) pattern is used
pre capital letter to draw line and
curve
No such pattern in
book Pre School
print hand A
Page 4 Heading- Practice, Heading pattern, Hence heading is
writing word by writing writing different and Pattern
drawing curve or word by drawing to draw line and
line or by joining curve or line or by curve is different as
curve and line joining curve and in plaintiff book line
line (I) pattern is used
and defendant book
Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 37 of 41
M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
dot(.) pattern is used to draw line and curve page 5 to each page is each page is having Alphabet in bold 11, 15 to having one one alphabet in print in defendant 22, 28 to alphabet in sequence of A to Z book, pattern of 45, 51 to sequence of A to and then pictures of Alphabet is 61, 63 to Z and then an item which start different as it in line 71 pictures of an from that alphabet (I) pattern in item which start plaintiff book and from that alphabet dot pattern in defendant book, Pictures are different and even in some of the pages the picture of item showing it relate to which alphabet is also different like in plaintiff book against alphabet B is picture of BUS and in defendant book it is picture of Bear bear and similarly against the alphabet C in plaintiff book it is picture of CAR and in defendant book it is picture of CAT even , Pattern to draw line and curve is different as in plaintiff book line (I) pattern is used and defendant book dot(.) pattern is used Page Many alphabet Many alphabet on Alphabet in bold 13,23,24,3 on one page like one page like on 13 print in defendant 6,37,46,47 on 13 ABCD, ABCD, page 23 book, pattern of ,61,62,73 page 23 EFGH EFGH Alphabet for and 74 practice is different as it in line (I) Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 38 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
pattern in plaintiff book and dot pattern in defendant book, Page Heading- Write Heading- Write the Heading in capital 25,48 and the correct Capital correct Capital letter in plaintiff 75 letters, and letters, book and small and pictures of and pictures of cursive writing in different items different items and defendant book, and then line then line space to pictures of items space to write first write first alphabet are different alphabet after after identifying the identifying the pictures pictures 26, 49 and Heading- Match Heading- Match the Heading in capital 76 the letters with letters with pictures, letter in plaintiff pictures, And book and small and And cursive writing in Alphabet in one Alphabet in one defendant book, coloumn and coloumn and pictures of items are pictures of items pictures of items in different in other coloumn other coloumn in in front of items front of items for for child to match child to match which alphabet which alphabet relate to which relate to which picture picture 27,50 and Heading- Circle Heading- Circle the Heading in capital 77 the correct capital correct capital letter letter in plaintiff letter, Pictures of items book and small and Pictures of items and below the cursive writing in and below the pictures three defendant book, pictures three alphabet and child pictures of items are alphabet and to circle picture different child to circle relate to which picture relate to alphabet which alphabet Page 78 to Many alphabet Many alphabet on pattern of Alphabet 86 on one page to one page to practice is different as it in practice alphabet alphabet writing line pattern in writing plaintiff book and Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 39 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
dot pattern in
defendant book,
Page 87 Heading - Fill in Heading Fill in Heading in capital
-88 missing capital missing capital letters in plaintiff
letters letters book and small
cursive writing in
defendant book,
Printing of alphabet
is also different
38. Thus, from the aforesaid comparison I am of the view that there are no similarities in the plaintiff and defendant book except that both the books having same numbers of page and the books are arrange in the same manner i.e. contents in both books are same which is quite possible considering the facts that both books are on same subject i.e. teaching the child to write capital letters A to Z. I do not find that using similar heading "practice" by defendants in its book is infringement of copy right as it is common word to denote to do practice of the lessons as it is quite common word used for doing practice of lesson. I do not find any originality in the plaintiff book. Preventing other person from publishing similar kind of book which is about teaching basic English alphabet A to Z would amount to hamper child to learn English language. I am not agree with the contentions of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that design / layout of both the books are same. Therefore applying the principles given in above said judgements and the various tests laid down in the said judgments to Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 40 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. determine whether in a particular case there has been a violation of the copyright, I am of the opinion that the book in question publish by the defendants cannot be said to be a substantial or material copy of the book publish by the plaintiff. I am of the view that after seeing the both the books that no prudent person can get an impression that the book publish by defendant is a copy or substantial and material copy of the plaintiff book . Thus, the present case does not fulfill the conditions laid down for holding that the defendants book have made a colourable imitation of the book of the plaintiff and thus violated the copy right of defendant book.
RELIEF.
39. In view of above, I held that since plaintiff has failed to prove that defendants have violated the copy right of plaintiff's book "Grafaclo Print Capital letters", therefore plaintiff is not entitle to any relief. Hence suit is dismissed with cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
40. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Pronounced in open Court on 30.08.2022.
(Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Central, Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi.
Suit (Com.) No. 1876/2019 Page No. 41 of 41 M/s. Navneet Education Ltd. Vs. M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.