Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

41. There is no doubt in our minds to hold that the plaintiff is the owner of the artistic work Eenadu as it has been using the same as a Masthead of the newspaper right form the year 1974 and it owns the copyright throughout India. Any attempt made by the defendant with a slightly changed version suffixing and affixing anything to the Eenadu artistically created word which resembles the plaintiffs artistic work, cannot enure to the benefit of the defendant and the defendant cannot lay a claim for ownership of the said artistic work. As held by the Supreme Court in Cadila's case (supra), if the Court comes to the conclusion that there is a similarity between the marks of both the plaintiff and defendant, the dissimilarities assume insignificance. As indicated above, though there are dissimilarities between Ex.A8 and A59, but phonetically and visually the inscription Eenadu artistic work is one and the same. Thus, having regard to this fact and in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Cadila's case (supra), the plaintiff is entitled to claim that the defendant has infringed his copyright. Even though the defendant has registered the carton under Ex.A59 earlier under the Trademark Act, that may not come to the aid of the defendant as the case of the plaintiff is that it owns a copyright on the artistic work Eenadu right from the year 1974 and under the Copyright Act, no registration is required and therefore, the plaintiff is justified in alleging infringement of his artistic script Eenadu. In the absence of the defendant satisfactorily proving through evidence before the trial Court that he is the first owner of the artistic work Eenadu and in the light of the overwhelming evidence which the plaintiff has adduced which is reflected through Exs.Al to A63, we have no hesitation to hold that it is the plaintiff who is the owner of the copyright of the artistic script Eenadu. Insofar as the infringement is concerned, we have discussed elaborately in the foregoing paragraphs and we have no hesitation to hold that the defendant has infringed the copyright of the artistic work Eenadu held by the plaintiff. We, therefore, hold that the finding of the learned single Judge that both the plaintiff as well as the defendant have registered the artistic work Eenadu and there is no infringement by the defendant is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside.