Madras High Court
Dr.Salgunan.N vs Dr.Ram Gopal Edara on 11 November, 2019
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
C.S.No.853 of 2003
Reserved on : 31.10.2019
Pronounced on : 11.11.2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Civil Suit No.853 of 2003
1. Dr.Salgunan.N.
V-103, 5th Main Road,
Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.
2. M/s.Beatrice Salgunan,
Proprietrix,
M/s.Medical Publications INC,
V-103, 5th Main Road,
Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040. ... Plaintiffs
Vs
1. Dr.Ram Gopal Edara,
4-5-8/22, 1/3, Nava Bharat Nagar,
Guntur – 522 006
Andhra Pradesh.
2. M/s.Kalam Books,
4-5-8/22, 1/3,Nava Bharat Nagar,
V-103, 5th Main Road,
Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040. ... Defendants
Prayer :- Suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 CPC read with Sections 55 & 62 of
the Copyright Act, 1957 for the following reliefs :
1/22
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S.No.853 of 2003
a. Granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men,
servants, agents or anyone claiming through or under them from in any manner
infringing the plaintiffs' copyright on the literary work of compilation of the book
titled “Review of Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination” by printing,
publishing and offering for sale “PG Plus” or “PG Plus 2003” or any other book
which is substantial reproduction of the plaintiffs' compilation titled “Review of
Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination” or in any way infringing the
plaintiffs' copyright in the subject book.
b. Directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-
being the damages and loss suffered by the plaintiff due to the publication of the
defendants infringing books under the title “PG Plus” and “PG Plus 2003”.
c. Directing the defendants to surrender to the plaintiffs the entire stock of
unsold offending books 'PG Plus' and PG Plus 2003'.
d. Directing the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the cost of the suit.
For Plaintiffd : Mr.A.Prabhakara Reddy
For Defendants : Mr.Yashok Vardhan
for M/s.Sundar Narayanan
2/22
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S.No.853 of 2003
JUDGMENT
This suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any manner infringing the plaintiffs' copyright on the literary work of compilation of the book titled “Review of Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination” by printing, publishing and offering for sale “PG Plus” or “PG Plus 2003” or any other book which is substantial reproduction of the plaintiffs' compilation titled “Review of Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination” or in any way infringing the plaintiffs' copyright in the subject book and for damages.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiffs case is as follows :
2.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that the first plaintiff authored books of compilation of multi choice questions and answers under the title 'Review of Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examinations' ever since 1988 every year and the second plaintiff is the publisher of the same. The first plaintiff is a senior consultant cardio thoracic surgery by profession. The plaintiff, seeing the difficulties experienced by the candidates preparing for the post graduate medical entrance examinations and with the encouragement given by professors and doctors, compiled multiple choice questions and answers and first published 3/22 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2003 in the year 1988 under the title “Review of Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examinations'. The plaintiff has spent considerable amount of time, skill, capital, labour and expenses for compilation of the book deriving important questions from various entrance examination question papers from the year 1978. The first plaintiff had put in enormous task in collecting these question papers. He had put in more efforts to find correct answers to all the questions contained therein by referring to standard text books, contacting experts in the respective fields in India and abroad, browsing through internet etc. The latest volume contain around 18,000 multi choice questions. This voluminous task was not done overnight but was built up over a period 15 long years ever since 1988 as follows :
Year No. of questions contained
1989 3000
1993 6000
1994 10000
1995 12000
1996 13000
1997 14000
1998 15000
1999 16000
4/22
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S.No.853 of 2003
2000 17000
2001 17500
2002 18000
The following are unique features of the plaintiffs' compilation work :
a. The questions are arranged and grouped topic-wise for easy reading and coverage by the users.
b. The answers are given for the questions at the bottom of the respective pages for easy reference instead of giving at the end of the book or the end of the topic.
c. The questions are arranged year-wise under each topic to the possible extent so as to enable the users to ascertain the latest trend of questions asked.
d. the questions are selected from the examinations conducted right from the year 1978. This feature finds due prominence on the cover of the book. Therefore, the plaintiff has become the owner of the copyright on the original compilation work in the book titled “Review of Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination” and the second plaintiff who publishes the book has commercial interest over the same.
2.2. While the facts remain so, in September 2003, the plaintiff came across a publication of multiple choice questions by the first defendant printed 5/22 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2003 under the name and style “PG Plus 2003” containing inter alia the multiple choice questions from the year 1978 to 2003 wherein it was mentioned as second edition. When the matter was further looked into, it was found that the defendants had already published their 'First Edition' in the year 2002 under the title 'PG Plus'. The first defendant has published these book through the second defendant. When the first plaintiff went through the books of the defendants, it was found that the major portion appearing in the defendants' books are those questions that were originally compiled by the plaintiffs with strenuous efforts.
The first defendant had adopted the same topics that are adopted by the plaintiffs, but in order to mislead and to escape the punitive action, the first defendant had changed the order of the topics. Though the defendants in their book have copied majority of the questions, in order to circumvent, they have added or deleted few of the questions from out of the 17,000 questions published by the plaintiffs. Thus they have copied substantial portion of the book of the plaintiff and thus infringed the right of the plaintiffs. The defendants have adopted almost the same number of questions under each topic with minor additions and deletions. The defendants, while copying the book did not even bother to correct some mistakes crept in their book due to printer's error. The defendants had copied verbatim repeating the same mistakes in their book. Because of the reproduction and copying the literary work of the first plaintiff and 6/22 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2003 publication of the aforesaid book, the sales and demand for the book of the plaintiffs has come down and the plaintiffs are put to great hardship and loss due to the illegal acts of the defendants. Hence, the suit.
3. Brief contentions of the defendants are as follows :
3.1 Denying the allegations of the plaintiffs, it is the contention of the defendants that compilation of questions from various universities is no literary or artistic work. The multiple choices are not original and they are all a reproduction from actual questions asked in various examinations conducted by various universities. The works are therefore, not original but complied from materials which are open to all. The mere fact that the plaintiff has published such a work will not deprive the right of the defendants to publish another work of the same kind. The plaintiffs cannot claim any exclusive rights over the same. Even prior to the book published by the plaintiff there was an earlier work called as Dr.Omkarnath's Medical Encyclopaedia published by CBS publishers and Distributors, Delhi since in the year 1985. Several other publications have been made from several publishing houses, all of whom try to gather questions asked in various examinations from 40 odd medical universities in India. To list few publishers, they are Jaypee Publications, New Delhi, CBS Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, Aditya Medical Publishers, New Delhi, Paras Medical 7/22 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2003 Books, Hyderabad, Vikas Bharati publication Hyderabad, All India publishers and distributors, Chennai. Since uniformity in standard or education is ensured through regulation from Medical Council of India, the subjects taught in all graduate courses and the number of years are the same. The question papers are therefore, drawn only from 20 known subjects which are categorized as areas of separate study in the academic disciplines of all medical colleges.
3.2 Dr.Omkarnath's publication had come out in the year 1985 and the plaintiffs' work had been released only in the year 1989. The plaintiffs' work was one of mere compilation whereas the defendants have expended expertise and labour in classifying them and arranging them under various sub heads in an user friendly manner. The work of the defendants is not only dissimilar but has no connection with the work of the plaintiffs. In fact the answering defendant's book is very distinct and carries a stamp of specialty in that. It sub divides each subject to various sub topics which are easy for students for reference and study.
The total number of questions have been picked up from out of about one lakh questions spreading over 25 years. In printing about 16,000 questions and answers, if there is overlapping of questions and answers even in about 50%, it cannot mean copying. It is the further case of the defendants that in 2001 edition, out of 483 questions in Orthopaedics which find place in the plaintiffs 8/22 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2003 book, 315 questions are the same as those found in Dr.Omkarnath's book. Thus 65% of the questions are common to both the books. Hence, it is contention of the defendants that the plaintiff has no copyright over the compilation of questions.
4. Based on the above pleading, the following issues have been framed :
1. Whether the plaintiffs can claim copyright in their book containing compilation of questions from various university papers, claiming it to be a literary or artistic work within the meaning of copyright under the copyright Act, 1957?
2. Whether the book of the defendants in arraning the questions topic-wise and year-wise culled out from old questions is totally in contract with the plaintiffs' books, which, according to the defendants is a mere compilation of the questions found in the data bank?
3. Whether the books published by the defendants infringe the purported copyright of the plaintiffs?
4. Are there different books published by several publishers similar in general but different in its presentation than 9/22 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2003 the book of the plaintiffs? If so, can the plaintiffs claim copyright in their work?
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs of permanent injunction as prayed for?
6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim damages for infringement of copyright? If so, to what extent?
7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a direction against the defendants to surrender books 'PG Plus' and 'PG Plus 2003'?
8. To what relief, the plaintiffs are entitled?
5. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 were marked. On side of the defendants, D.W.1 has been examined and Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6 were marked.
Witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiffs :
P.W.1. - Dr.Salgunan Witnesses examined on the side of the defendants:
D.W.1 – Dr.Rama Gupta'Edara 10/22 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2003 Exhibits produced on the side of the plaintiffs:
S.No Date Description of documents Exhibit
.
1. -- Photocopies of of letters P-1
2. -- The second edition of the book published in 1989 P-2
by the plaintiff
3. -- The fifth edition of the book published in 1992 by P-3
the plaintiff
4. -- The tenth edition of the book published in 1997 P-4
by the plaintiff
5. -- The fourtheenth edition of the book published in P-5
2001 by the plaintiff
6. -- The fifteenth edition of the book published in P-6
2002 by the plaintiff
7. -- The book of the defendants published in 2002 P-7
8. -- The book of the defendants published in 2003 P-8
9. -- Question paper for the examination conducted in P-9
the year 2009
10. -- Question paper for the examination conducted in P-10
the year 2012
11. -- Post Graduate Entrance Test 2011 by Karnataka P-11
State
12. -- Post Graduate Entrance Test in the year 2012 P-12
11/22
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S.No.853 of 2003
Exhibits produced on the side of the defendants:
S.No Date Description of documents
.
1. -- Dr.Omkarnath's Second edition on all India Post Graduate
Medical Entrance Examination
2. -- Dr.Omkarnath's 2001 Edition
3. -- Review of Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination (3
Volumes)
4. -- Questions from various University question papers covering
19 subjects (3 volumes)
5. -- Ninth Edition of book titled PG Plus published in March
2012 (2 volumes)
6. -- Page No.10 of Ex.D.1
6. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs would submit that the plaintiff is a Senior Consultant, Cardio Thoracic Surgeon. With a view to help candidates preparing for post graduate medical entrance examination, by great physical efforts skill, labour, time and by expending huge money, collected almost all question papers in the Post Graduate Entrance Examination conducted by various institutions and organizations and compiled them in topic order and first published the compilation in the year 1988 under the title “Review of Post Graduate Entrance Examination” and the second plaintiff is the publisher.
It is the further contention of the learned counsel that the questions are arranged and grouped topic-wise for easy reading and coverage by the users and the 12/22 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2003 answers are given for the questions at the bottom of the respective pages for easy reference instead of giving at the end of the book or at the end of each topic. The questions are selected from the examinations conducted right from the year 1978. Continuing the efforts in acquiring materials in updating at huge capital, skill, labour and expenses the number of questions in the plaintiffs' publications greatly increased from 3000 in 1988 to 18000 in 2002. Whereas, the defendants without any effort, labour, capital, expertise or skill had merely copied questions from the compilations of the plaintiffs and published under the title PG Plus. Hence, it is his contention that the defendants almost lifted all the questions from the plaintiffs book and published. Even the mistakes found in the plaintiffs questions were copied by the defendants. Hence, it is his contention that the compilation even derived from the common source also falls within the ambit of literary work protected under the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiff has published their compilation first. Hence, submitted that the plaintiff is certainly entitled to permanent injunction against the defendants. In support of his contentions, he also relied on the following judgments :
Eastern Book Company and others Vs. D.B.Modak and another reported in 2008 (1) SCC 1 Burlington Home Shopping Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajnish Chibbar reported in 1995 (35) DRJ 335 13/22 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2003 V. Govindan Vs. E.M.Gopalakrishna Kone reported in A.I.R. 1955 Madras 391 Shyam Lal Paharia Vs. Gaya Prasad Gupta 'Rasal reported in AIR 1971 Allahabad 1992
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendants would submit that the plaintiffs cannot claim any copyright over the question papers compiled in his book. The plaintiff himself has copied the question papers of various other books. Mere collection of questions published various universities will not amount to creativity. The plaintiffs had stopped publishing books for 6 years on account of his pre-ccupation with medical work. He also feigned ignorance to contents of various websites containing questions to various medical entrance examinations. However, he could not deny the fact that other publishers had come out with similar books as brought by the plaintiffs having similar contents. Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.5 being books in the public domain 60% viz., Dr.Omkarnath's Vikas Bharathi prior to the plaintiff and those books also have similar content. The plaintiffs have also admitted that it would be possible for others to come out with similar books once the questions and answers became available in public domain. Importantly, the mistakes pointed out by the plaintiffs in their plaint which the plaintiffs claim have been lifted from their book without 14/22 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2003 the defendants even correcting them were also present in Dr.Omkarnath's book.
These facts clearly indicate that the plaintiff himself copied the questions from Dr.Omkarnath's book. Therefore, there is no copyright for the alleged creativity. Hence, it is his contention that there is no copyright in an idea but only the expression of an idea in the form of a literary, musical, artistic or dramatic work, cinematograph film or sound recording. The test of minimum skill and judgment would be the factor in deciding whether the copyright subsists in any derivative work. Hence, submitted that the plaintiff's suit has to fail. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment in Eastern Book Company and others Vs. D.B.Modak and another reported in 2008 (1) Supreme Cout Cases 1.
8. Issue Nos.1 to 8.
On a perusal of the entire plaint, the same indicate that the plaintiff book contain questions from various question paper from various universities from the year 1978. What the plaintiff primarily done is that he compiled the multiple choices of the questions and answers. A perusal of the entire evidence of P.W.1 clearly indicate that much prior to the compilation made by the plaintiff, Dr.Omkarnath Vikas Bharathi and several others also compiled several questions from the very inception. Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.5 also filed to prove the above facts. In the cross examination of P.W.1 also he has not disputed the question 15/22 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2003 bank available in the form of various books and also on online platform. He could not deny the fact that the other publishers have also come out with similar books. Therefore, this Court is of the view that when the question papers are available in the public domain, merely arranging the question papers topic wise cannot be said that the plaintiff has acquired copyright in the work.
9. The another contention of the plaintiff is that the defendants have copied some 5 questions from the plaintiffs book with similar mistakes. Whereas, the evidence of P.W.1 clearly indicate that such mistakes are also very much found in the earlier books published by Dr.Omkarnath Ex.D.2. These facts clearly indicate that the plaintiff is not the author of questions published in his book and infact he himself has copied from some other compilations. The entire cross examination of P.W.1, when carefully seen the same reveals that the plaintiff had stopped publishing books for 6 years on account of his preoccupation with medical work on the date of evidence. It is also admitted the availability of question bank in the public domain. Section 13 of the Copyright Act deals with copyright subsists. As per Section 13 of the Copyright Act, the copyright shall subsist in
(a) Original, literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works
(b) cinematograph films and 16/22 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2003
(c) Sound recording It is also well settled that there is no copyright in an idea but only the expression of an idea in the form of a literary, musical, artistic or dramatic work, cinematograph film or sound recording. In the judgment in Eastern Book Company and others Vs. D.B.Modak and another reported in 2008 (1) Supreme Court Cases 1, the Apex Court has held that test of minimum skill and judgment would be the factor in deciding whether the copyright subsists in any derivative work. While tracing the march of copyright law, the Apex Court considered certain English judgments viz., University of London Press Ltd. V. University Tutorial Press Ltd. 1916 (2) Ch 601 which had enunciated the “sweat of the brow doctrine” where the emphasis was the labour expended on a project it also considered the decisions of the American Court in Feist Publications Inc. v Rural Telephone Service Co. Inc. in 499 U.S. 340 where the “Sweat of the brow” doctrine was rejected in favour of the test of minimal degree of creativity reasoning that copyright protection could not apply to facts per se, that choices as to sequencing and arrangements of facts so long as they were compiled independently and entailed a modicum of creativity would pass the test of being original.
17/22 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2003
10. In Dr.Reckeweg & Co. GMBH Vs. Adven Biotech P. Ltd. reported in the Delhi High Court has held as follows :
“To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work. The principle known as the idea expression or fact expression dichtomy, applies to all works or authorship. As applied to a factual compilation, assuming the absence of original written expression, only the compiler's selection and arrangement may be protected; the raw material may be copied at will.”
11. In Govindan Vs. E.M.Gopalakrishna Kone and another reported in AIR 1955 Madras 391, this Court has held that
10. Exhibit A. 7 shows that even errors were carried over, from Ex. A. 1 and the other dictionaries consulted by D. W. 1, into Ex. A. 2. Exhibit A. 8 shows the sequence of words in Ex. A. 1 being slavishly copied in Ex. A. 2. The matter is important because Subbier had only chosen certain words considered by him to be suitable for students of the first to sixth forms in the dictionary, Ex. A. 1, which did not, therefore, purport to be a complete dictionary of all English words. The words in Ex. A. 8 are not such as would commend universal acceptance or approval as words suitable for high school boys. Words like Apostrophizs, aperture, apothecary are not quite the words one would think suitable for such students, 18/22 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2003 but even they were copied, like the errors, by D. W. 1, in Ex. A. 2, in his haste' to produce his dictionary, Ex'. A. 2, from Ex. A. I.
11. Some words like cadence, macrocosm, etc., not likely to be of much use to such high school-boys, in Ex. A. 1 were copied out with indefatigable fidelity by D. W. 1, in Ex. A. 2. The meaning of most of the words were copied out from Ex. A. 1, and. even the sequence of the Tamil words given as meanings is the same. Many peculiar idioms were taken over bodily from Ex. A. I to A. 2. There is absolutely no doubt that D. W. 1, in compiling Ex. A. 2, bad as his main quarry Ex, A. 1, with minor quarries like Percival's dictionary and Swaminatha Aiyar's dictionary. It was finally admitted by appellant's counsel 'that D. W, 1 copied everything in Ex. A. 2 from some dictionary or other. He Is said to have copied from 12 dictionaries.
12. The next contention was that no originality can be claimed in Dictionaries compilations, guide books, maps etc., as they involve no brains, skill and labour, and the compilation by one man will be exactly the same as the compilation by any other man. I cannot agree. Many men have not got the brains, skill and labour to compile dictionaries, gazetteers, grammars, maps, almanacs, encyclopaedias and guide books. Nor are all of such compilations of the same nature. Then it will be obvious that only one dictionary gazetteer, grammar, map, almanac, encyclopaedia or guide book will, sell, and not the rest. Any man who refers to the Oxford Dictionary, Webster dictionary and Chambers dictionary can easily find out the difference between these dictionaries. There is considerable difference in dealing with the subject-matter. That, will 19/22 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2003 be specially so when the dictionary is not of all the words in the language, but of 'select words' considered suitable for high school boys,' where the very same words in one dictionary being taken over to another and later dictionary will certainly prove piracy.
13. In Copinger and James on Law of Copyright, 8th Edn., at page 124, the law has been neatly summarised as follows:
"In the case of compilations such as dictionaries, gazetteers, grammars, maps, arithmetics, almanacs, encyclopaedias and guide books, new publications dealing with similar subject-matter must of necessity resemble existing publications, and the defence of 'common source' is frequently made where the new publication is alleged to constitute an infringement of an earlier one."
It is clearly recognised that all these books are capable of having copyright in them. In law books and books of" the above description, the amount of 'originality' will be very small," but that small amount is 'protected by law', and no man is entitled to steal or appropriate for himself the result of another's brain, skill or labour even in such works.” But in the present case, as already discussed, even the mistakes were infact copied by the plaintiff from the earlier books released by Dr.Omkarnath. All these facts clearly indicate that the plaintiff himself has copied the compilations of various books. Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendants had infringed the copyrights of the plaintiffs. Hence, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in this suit.
20/22 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.853 of 2003
18. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed. No cost.
11.11.2019
vrc
Index : Yes/ No
Internet : Yes
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
21/22
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.S.No.853 of 2003
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
Judgment in
Civil Suit No.853 of 2003
11.11.2019
22/22
http://www.judis.nic.in