Delhi District Court
Walter Foster Publishing Inc vs Smt. Usha Dua on 22 December, 2008
IN THE COURT OF MS. BIMLA KUMARI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: DELHI
Suit No.484/08
IN THE MATTER OF
Walter Foster Publishing Inc.,
23062, La Cadena Drive,
Laguna Hills, CA 92653,
U. S. A.
Through
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta,
Power of Attorney ..............Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Smt. Usha Dua,
W/o Sh. Shyam Dua
Prop. Tiny Tot Publication
235, Jagriti Enclave,
Vikas Marg,
Delhi-110092.
2. Mr. Arun Jain
Prop. Rohan Book Company
G-22, Indraprastha Apartments
Plot No.114, Patparganj
Delhi-110092
3. Mr. Rahul Singhal,
Prop. XACT AD 'N' Art Studio
Building 1&2, Commercial Complex
Ashok Vihar-I,
Delhi-52
4. XACT AD Packaging Group
Modi Complex, IIIrd Floor,
Building No.2, Phase-II
Ashok Vihar-I,Delhi-52.
5. Pinki Book Distributors,
4759/XI, Pratap Street,
23, Ansari Road
Daryaganj,
Delhi. ............... Defendants
Arguments heard on :15.12.2008
Judgment announced on:22.12.2008
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff is a company duly incorporated in the United States of America. Plaintiff has filed the present suit through Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, who is duly authorised signatory of the plaintiff company to file, sign and verify the present suit. Plaintiff company is engaged in publishing, printing and marketing in various kinds of books all over world for more than 80 years and is known for its publications through out the world. Plaintiff has always adopted new ideas in a distinct style in publishing its material and the work of the plaintiff is recognized all over world for its distinctiveness and for innovative features. The plaintiff company published a series of books for the students studying/learning art. The books of the plaintiff company is the outcome of devoted and consistent efforts, which were made by the efficient persons under the contract of service for the company, to present the things in a particular manner with a particular style to make it simple for the purpose of learning art. The series of books of plaintiff company was first published 40 years back in U. S. A. and was widely circulated in the market. The publication of the plaintiff company became popular amongst the art students, artists and other persons in India. Plaintiff launched 77 books for teaching art to the students and artists. Plaintiff company has first marketed this series of books in India. Therefore, no one other than the plaintiff can claim to be the owner of the copyright in the work. Having adopted a new and innovative idea, to teach art, in a particular style, with new paintings of different colour combination, get up and artistic style with a systematic and lucid literature, the plaintiff put the same to the commercial use in India for more than 35 years back. Therefore, the plaintiff is the true owner and lawful proprietor of copyright in the said work. The work of the plaintiff amounts to original literary work as combination of art and literature. The plaintiff is thus entitled to the exclusive use under the provisions of Copyright Act.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are engaged in the same business. Defendant No.1 is the proprietor of Tiny Tot Publications, who is a publisher of the books and publishing the identical books as that of the plaintiff by reproducing the same pictures and literature with minor changes. Defendants No.2 & 5 are the distributors of the publication of defendant No.1 and are selling /dealing with the pirated and illegally published books of defendant No.1. Defendant No.3 is an Art Studio, who has copied, printed and designed the identical publication as of the plaintiff for defendant No.1 without the licence from the plaintiff. Defendant No.4 is the sister concern of defendant No.3 and has advertised and promoted the sale of pirated books of defendant No.1. Defendants No.1 & 3 have adopted the identical and deceptively similar work, having same paintings, literature, colour scheme, get up, writing style, placement and arrangement of pictures and literature, which amounts to infringement of copyright of plaintiff. The defendants No.1&3 with dishonest and malafide intention, reproduced the identical and deceptively similar work under the name of 'ArtMaster'by launching a series of 75 books. Defendants have acted in a very clever manner and while printing literary work, they have placed first sentence as second and second as first and so on. Since, the books of the plaintiff is made to learn art from beginning, the purchasers are young art students as well as other students and artists. The confusion and deception among the public and trade is inevitable on account of use of identical or similar work having paintings, literature colour scheme, get up, writing style, placement and arrangement of pictures and literature. The defendants are guilty of infringement of copyright of plaintiff and passing of their publication/books, for the publication and books of the plaintiff. Average reader and viewer gets unmistakable impression that the pirated copies of the defendants are copies of the original work of the plaintiff. The books of the defendant, under the deceptive literature and art work amounts to misrepresentation made by the defendants in the course of business which is likely to and is calculated to injure the business goodwill as well as the literature and publication of the plaintiff which the plaintiff has established by dint of his hard efforts of several years.
3. The plaintiff served a cease and desist notice dated 27.12.04 to the defendant No.1 not to publish the infringing material alongwith the list of 75 infringing publications made by the defendants under the name of 'ArtMaster'.The defendant No.1 in its reply dated 07.01.05 admitted that he got prepared the infringing materials from defendants No.3&4 and asked for the books of plaintiff for comparison. Plaintiff also served a legal notice dated 06.01.05 to defendant No.4, who was advertising the publication of defendant No.1 on its web site. Defendant No.4 in its reply dated 17.01.05 admitted that he was engaged in the promotion of books and publication of defendant No.1. Defendant No.4 also intimated to the plaintiff that defendant No.3 was engaged in the designing of infringing material/books. When the plaintiff came to know that pirated books were being sold by defendant No.2, it immediately served a legal notice dated 13.01.05 to him to cease and desist from selling infringed material. In the reply dated 18.01.05, it was admitted by defendants No.1&2 that the infringing material was supplied to them by defendants No.3&4. Defendant No.2 also demanded the original publication of the plaintiff for comparison. The plaintiff sent the copies of series of books to defendants No.1&2 but despite that the defendants did not stop to publish infringing material. Finally, plaintiff served a legal notice to defendants to immediately stop publishing infringing material or else to initiate proceedings against them. In reply to it, defendant No.4 admitted that the infringing material was published on the lay out plan, suggested by defendant No.1. On account of defendant'sunjust and unlawful activities, plaintiff has suffered damages to the reputation and further damages to the trade and reputation are inevitable unless the defendants are restrained immediately by an order of injunction from violating the plaintiff'slegal and vested rights in the exclusive use of series of publication/books. Thus, plaintiff has filed the present suit for the permanent and perpetual injunction restraining infringement of Copyright, Passing off and for Rendition of accounts.
4. The suit of the plaintiff has been contested by all the defendants. In the written statements, filed by them, they have raised certain common preliminary objections by submitting that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, as no copyright paper has been filed by the plaintiff alongwith the plaint. Under the Copyright law only the owner can file a civil suit. The plaintiff has to establish the claim of ownership for copyright in a work before asking any relief from the court. Each and every publication, listed in para no.7 of the plaint, should have its own copyright documents i.e assignment, exclusive licence or any agreement between the author and the plaintiff and in the absence of these documents, no copyright can be claimed by the plaintiff and the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. The power of attorney of the plaintiff cannot be acted upon as it is totally un-stamped in terms of Indian Stamp Act. The suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on account of territorial jurisdiction of the court.
5. On merits, all the defendants have denied that Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta is the duly authorised signatory, as no proper document has been filed with the plaint. The defendants have denied that all the 77 books, listed in para 7 of plaint, were launched in India, which were allegedly published by the plaintiff. They have submitted that none of these 77 books was available in the market. They have further submitted that no one becomes the owner of copyright by virtue of merely publishing a book. Plaintiff cannot claim ownership of copyright on the basis of first marketing of the books in India. They have denied that it was in their knowledge that plaintiff was owner of the copyright of the said work and was the exclusive user. No one becomes the owner of copyright of work by merely publishing it. It is the author, who is the owner of the copyright. The defendants have denied that the work of the plaintiff is original literary work as combination of art and literature. No one can be entitled to exclusive use of a work without being owner, assignee or a licensee in that particular work.
6. Defendant No.1 has admitted that she is the publisher of the books. However, she has denied that she is publisher of identical books as published by the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 has denied that defendant No.2 is her distributor. However, defendant No.5 is the distributor for the over 2000 publications of the defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 has denied that defendant No.5 was selling/dealing with the pirated and illegally books published by defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 has further denied that she and defendant No.3 have adopted the identical and deceptive similar work of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 has only published 21 titles in the series called Art Master, which were duly prepared by defendant No.3 with his own skill, artistic vision and experience in the field. Defendant No.1 has stated that nowhere in the entire plaint the plaintiff has mentioned as to which book of the plaintiff and which part of the book was copied by the defendants.
7. Defendant No.1 has denied that she admitted in reply dated 07.01.05 that the "infringed" material was prepared by defendants No.3&4. It is further denied by the defendant No.1 that the defendants are acting in a common design to publish alleged infringing material. Defendant No.1 has also submitted that plaintiff is not the owner of copyright in the said books. The books of the defendants are entirely different to the alleged books of plaintiff in size, name of the titles and the material contained therein. The suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action. Plaintiff company has no office in Delhi.
8. The defendant No.2 has also denied that defendant No.1 is the publisher of identical books as published by the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 has further denied that he is the distributor of defendant No.1. It is denied by the defendant No.2 that any cause of action has arisen for rendition of accounts as defendant No.2 has never sold the books published by the defendant No.1.
9. Defendants No.3&4 have admitted that defendant No.3 is an Art Studio, but it is denied by them that defendant No.3 has copied any publication of the plaintiff. They have never seen the publication of the plaintiff. Defendant No.4 is the sister concern of defendant No.3, which stands now closed. Defendants No.3&4 have further denied that defendant No.4, at any stage, submitted to the plaintiff that they have taken any legal action against the defendant No.1. It is denied that defendant No.3 has infringed work. Whatever they do is a genuine and original work prepared with their own visuliation, skill and efforts with the help of staff of over 200 persons. Defendant No.3 has prepared the 21 books published by defendant No.1 according to the layout plans of the defendant No.1. They have admitted that defendant No.3 sent a reply, dated 06.09.05, to the notice of the plaintiff, in which it was written that books prepared by them were genuine in every respect and did not infringe any copyright.
10. Defendant No.5 has submitted that it is the distributor for the defendant No.1, who is the publisher of over 2000 books, which are original and do not infringe any copyright. Rest of the allegations of plaintiff were denied by all the defendants.
11. Replication has been filed by the plaintiff to the written statements of the defendant, wherein plaintiff has reiterated all the facts and submitted that plaintiff being the first publisher is the exclusive owner of copyright of publications mentioned in the plaint. In the copyright law the publisher, who publishes first is the owner of the copyright of such publication and no such assignment, exclusive licence or any agreement is required. The publication of the plaintiff was done by the artists under the contract of service and thus plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the copyright.
12. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
ISSUES
(i) Whether the plaintiff has become the owner of the copyright of the books in question? If so, its effects. OPP
(ii)Whether the defendants have infringed the copyright of the plaintiff by publishing the work under the name of ART MASTER as pleaded in the plaint? If so, whether the defendants are guilty of infringement of the copyright of the plaintiff and passing off their publication/books for the publication and books of the plaintiff?OPP
(iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for perpetual injunction as prayed in the plaint?OPP
(iv)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be decreed for delivery up and rendition of accounts?OPP
(v)Relief.
13. To prove its case, plaintiff has examined two witnesses. They are Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta (PW-1) and Shri S. C. Bali (PW-2). Defendants have examined six witnesses in their defence. They are Shri Shyam Dua (DW-1), Sh. Arun Jain (DW-2), Shri Arvind Kumar (DW-3), Sh. Rahul Singhal (DW-4), Sh. Sandeep Kaushik (DW-5) and Shri Vikas Dua (DW-6).
14. I have heard the arguments from ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and ld. Counsel for the defendants. I have perused the case file carefully.
15. My findings on the issues are as under:-
Issue No.1
16. The case of plaintiff company as asserted in Para 5 of the plaint is that "the books of the plaintiff company are the out come of the devoted and consistent effort, which was made by the efficient persons under the contract of service for the company to present the things in a particular manner with a particular style to make it simple for the purpose of learning hand".
17. In Para 10 of the replication, filed by the plaintiff, plaintiff has stated that "publication of the plaintiff was done by the artist under his contract of service and thus the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the copyright."
18. Moreover, PW-1 in Para 4 of his affidavit Ex.PA has deposed that "the Plaintiff Company is publishing a series of books for the students/learning art and for artists. The books of the Plaintiff company is the outcome of devoted and consistent efforts which was made by efficient persons under contract of service of the company to present the things in a particular manner with a particular style to make it simple for the purpose of learn art."
19. However, in cross-examination, PW-1 has deposed that all the books filed by him in the court contained the authors names. He has further deposed that he does not know whether the authors of these books are still alive or they have died and, if so, when. PW-1 has further deposed that he does not know whether the books had been written by the authors, when they were in the employment of the plaintiff company or whether the books were written under some contract with the plaintiff. PW-1 has further deposed that he does not know whether the author of the books have assigned their copyrights to the plaintiff or whether they had given any licence to the plaintiff to publish or launch those books in any part of the world.
20. PW-1 has admitted that three books, filed by the plaintiff company, were authored by 'Mr.Walter T Foster'. He (PW-1) does not know whether two books were authored by 'Mr.Williams F Powell'. PW-1 has also deposed that one book Ex.PW1/51 was authored by 'JackKeely'and one book Ex.PW1/57 is authored by Joan Hansen. PW-1 has further deposed that book Ex.PW-1/39 was written by an employee of the company alongwith author William F Powell and book Ex.PW1/43 have been written by the employee of the company alongwith author Jack Keely. This witness has further deposed that he does not remember the names of the employees of the company as company had many employees. The company did not intimate him the names of the employees, who had written the books.
21. PW-1 has further deposed that he did not file any document to show that plaintiff company in fact possesses copyright in those books. He(PW-1)has further deposed that he can not produce any document, which may show that the author have assigned their copyright in favour of plaintiff company. He (PW-1) has further deposed that he does not have any document, which may show that 'VarietyBook Depot'is the distributor of the plaintiff in India. He(PW-1)has denied that he has a personal interest in this case and wanted to extort money from the defendants.
22. PW-2 has filed his affidavit Ex.PW2/A. He has deposed that first publisher becomes owner of copyright. In cross-examination he has deposed that he does not know as to how he claimed that one who publishes books become owner of the copyright.
23. Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides as to who will be the owner of copyright of a work. It is reproduced here for ready reference:-
"Subject to the provisions of this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein:
Provided that-
(a)in the case of a literary, dramatic or artistic work made by the author in the course of his employment by the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical under a contract of service or apprenticeship, for the purpose of publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, the said proprietor shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright in the work in so far as the copyright relates to the publication of the work in any newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, or to the reproduction of the work in any newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, or to the reproduction of the work for the purpose of its being so published, but in all other respects the author shall be the first owner of the copyright in the work;
(b)---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c)in the case of a work made in the course of the author's employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship, to which clause(a) or clause(b) does not apply, the employer shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein;
{(cc)-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d)---------------------------------------------------------------------------
{(dd)------------------------------------------------------------------------ Explanation--------------------------------------------------------------
(e)-----------------------------------------------------------------------."
24. A bare reading of Section 17 of the Copyright Act shown that the author of the work shall be the first owner of the copyright. However, Section 17 contains a proviso which provides that the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical shall be the first owner of the copyright in the work, if the work was made by the author in the course of employment, under a contract of service or apprenticeship for the purpose of publication in a newspaper, magazine or a similar periodical.
25. In the present case, the plaintiff company is not a proprietor of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical. It is a publishing company, which has published certain books of different authors. Therefore, Proviso(a) to Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
26. In view of proviso (c) to Section 17 of Copyright Act, a proprietor or an employer may be the first owner of the copyright, if the work is made by the author in the course of employment and the work is made by the author under a contract of service or apprenticeship. For the applicability of this Clause, it is very much essential that a work should be made in the course of author's employment with the employer. The work should be made under a contract of service or apprenticeship.
27. In the present case, plaintiff company has failed to bring on record anything to prove that the authors namely, Mr. William F Powell, Jack Keely, Joan Hansen and others had written the books in the course of employment of the plaintiff company and under the contract of service. There is no evidence on record to show that the authors have ever assigned their copyrights in favour of plaintiff company. Until and unless the copyright is assigned by author in favour of proprietor or employer the proprietor or employer cannot be the first owner of the copyright.
28. In the present case PW-1 has deposed that he cannot produce any document, which may show that the author have assigned their copyright in favour of the plaintiff company. He has further deposed that he does not know whether the author have written books when they were in the employment of the plaintiff company or they have written the books under some contract alongwith plaintiff company. He has deposed that he does not know whether the author of the books had given any licence to the plaintiff company to publish or launch those books in any part of the world.
29. In the present case, plaintiff has failed to prove on record any contract of service or assignment of copyright by the authors in its favour. There is no iota of evidence to show that plaintiff has become the owner of copyright in the books in question.
30. In Gama Prasad Agarwalla and another V. Nabahash Goswami & Others, AIR 1967 Assam & Nagaland 70, the Hon'ble High Court allowed the appeal of the appellants, which was filed by the principal defendants. In that case proforma defendants No.5 to 7 wrote an Assamese drama known as 'PiyoliPhookan'.The drama was published and printed by proforma defendant No.8, the Associated Service Ltd, of which the proforma defendant No.1 was the managing director. The drama was printed and published at the instance of 'NavgaonNowgong Samity',which was also known as the 'NowgongDramatic Club'of which plaintiff No.1 to 3 were members. Thus the Samity became the sole owner and proprietor of the publication and reserved its copyright in that drama.
31. The defendants without obtaining any permission and authority from the plaintiff converted the said drama into a motion pricture. The 'NowgongNatya Samity'filed the suit for infringment of copyright. The defendants took the defence that the drama was written by them and thus the defendant did not infringe the copyright .
32. The trial court decreed the suit. Consequently, the defendants filed the appeal wherein they challenged that plaintiff did not have copyright and therefore, they had no right to bring the suit.
33. The Hon'bleHigh Court held that there was no evidence of any writing under which the authors have assigned their right to the 'NowgongNatya Samity'. The High Court further observed that there was no allegation in the plaint that the authors were employed by the 'NowgongNatya Samity'under a contract of service and in the course of employment they wrote out the book.
34. The court also observed that Section 30 of the Copyright Act provides for grant of licences. It lays down that the owner of the copyright in any existing work or the prospective owner of the copyright in any future work may grant any interest in the right by licence in writing signed by him or by his duly authorised agent. There was nothing in the record to show that any licence was granted to 'Nowgong Natya Dramatic Club."
35. The Hon'bleHigh Court allowed the appeal by holding that the authors of the drama were not under contract of service; that the author did not gift the drama to the drama society; that the authors of the drama did not give any licence to the drama society. Hence, the authors of the drama were the owners of copyright. Therefore, the suit for infringement of copyright filed by the drama society against the producer of film was found not to be maintainable.
36. In Kemraj Shrikrishnadas V. Garg & Company, AIR 1975 Delhi 130, it was held by Hon'bleDelhi High Court that plaintiff must prove its title or exclusive right to use the trade mark (or work) in infringment of trade mark or copyright cases.
37. Section 55(1) of the copyright Act provides for civil remedies for infringement of copyright. It is reproduced herein for ready reference.
(1)Where copyright in any work has been infringed, the owner of the copyright shall, except as otherwise provided by this Act, be 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 a right."
38. In Penguin Books Ltd., England Vs. India Book Distributors, AIR 1985 Delhi 29 it was held that "it is the owner of copyright to go to court to prevent a wrong from taking place or to seek redress when a wrong has taken place. It is for the copyright owner to seek a 'civilremedy'for any infringement (actual or potential) of his legal interest..."
39. During arguments, ld. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that since the authors of books have not raised any objection, it will presumed that they have relinquished their copyrights in favour of the plaintiff company. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon judgment of Hon'bleAndhra Pradesh High Court in M/s Holy Faith International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Dr. Shiv K. Kumar, AIR 2006 A.P
198. I have gone through the judgment and I am of the considered view that the aforesaid judgment of Hon'bleAndra Pradesh High Court is not applicable to the facts of the case. In that case the appellant approached the plaintiff for revising the book series entitled "Holy Faith Direct Approach to Interactive English'and offered to pay at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per each book to respondent. The plaintiff revised the books and delivered them, but he was paid only a sum of Rs.75,000/- by the appellants. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,25,000/-. The suit of the respondent was decreed by the trial court. In appeal, the first appellate court confirmed the order of ld. Trial court. The appellants came in second appeal. The questions which were before the second appellate court for determination are as under:-
(1)Whether the contract between the plaintiff and the defendants for the revision of the books Ex.A1 to A4 is void having been entered into in violation of the provisions of the Copy Right Act?
(2)Whether the doctrine of in pari delicto is attracted in the instant case and would disentitle to the plaintiff to the suit claim.
40. The Hon'bleHigh Court held that the contract was not void. The Hon'bleHigh Court also found that the doctrine of in pari delicto was not attractive in the above mentioned case and appeal of the appellant was dismissed.
41. In the aforesaid case, certain books, which were written by the original authors were published by the appellant. On the top of the book the names of the authors were printed. One of the questions that arose for consideration was as to whether the act of the plaintiff, in revising the books, can be said to have infringed the copyright of the original authors. The Hon'bleHigh Court has held when there was no action obviously on the part of the original authors as against the first defendant in having published their work, it may be understood that authors might have relinquished their rights. Therefore, the first defendant cannot now claim that the plaintiff had infringed the copyright of the original authors when the original authors were not at all in the arena.
42. However, the facts of the present case are totally different from the facts of above mentioned case. In the present case, question of relinquishing of the rights by the authors in favour of the plaintiff company does not arise at all because the case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint, replication and in the affidavit of PW-1 is that, the books in question were written by the authors during their employment with the plaintiff and under contract of service. In other words, as per the case of the plaintiff the authors were the employees of the plaintiff company and, therefore, the plaintiff was the exclusive owner of the copyright in the books. The case of the plaintiff company stands on a totally different footing. A copyright in a work can be assigned by a person, when he is the owner of the work. Since as per the case of the plaintiff, the books were written by the authors during the employment and under the contract of service the authors cannot be said to be the owners of the books. Therefore, in the present case it cannot be said that it will be presumed that authors might have relinquished their copyright in favour of the plaintiff company.
43. During the arguments, ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has raised another point that plaintiff company is the owner of copyright in the books as all the books carried a note that all the copyrights were reserved with the plaintiff company. In G. P. Agarwala and another Vs. Nabhash Goswami, AIR 1967 Assam & Nagaland 70 it was held by the Hon'bleHigh Court that mere mentioning of claim in the book that copyright pertains to the publisher does not confer any copyright to the publisher.
44. In view of the above judgment, I am of the considered view that mere mentioning in a book that 'allthe copyrights are reserved by the publisher does not confer any copyright on the publisher'.In view of above discussion it is held that the plaintiff company has not become the owner of the copyright in the books in question. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant.
Issue No.2
45. In decision of issue no.1, it has been held that plaintiff has not become the owner of copyright in the books in question. Therefore, it cannot be said that defendants have infringed the copyright of the plaintiff by publishing the work under the name of 'Art Master'. Therefore, defendants are not guilty of infringement of any copyright of the plaintiff and passing of their publication/books for the publication and books of the plaintiff. Hence, Issue No.2 is decided against plaintiff and in favour of defendant.
Issue No.3 &4
46. As both issues can be conveniently decided together, I am taking both the issues together.
Since the plaintiff has failed to prove the ownership of the copyright in the books in question and defendants have not infringed the copyright of the plaintiff, I am of the considered view that plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for perpetual injunction and a decree for delivery up and rendition of accounts as prayed in the plaint. Accordingly, Issue No.3 & 4 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Relief
47. In view of above decision on Issues No.1 to 4, I am of the considered view that plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Smt.BIMLA KUMARI) on 22.12.2008 Additional District Judge, Delhi.