Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. The impugned judgment rejected copyright claims, stating colour and colour combination by virtue of Copyright Act, cannot result in exclusivity under the law and the case of alleged infringement of copyright under AIR1981Delhi95 FAO (OS) 326/2007 Page 7 Section 45 of the Act is not maintainable. It was also observed that the copyright claimed by the plaintiffs ceased to exist under Section 15 of the Copyright Act. Samsonite Corporation v. Vijay Sales 4 was relied on for purpose. It was stated that the drawings in question were prepared by the plaintiffs for the purpose of creating designs for the products to be launched, as alleged in the suit. Description of various processes - from conceptualization of idea, creation of drawings, and moulds, leading to the manufacture of the product was for the purpose of product creation. Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. &Ors5, Polymer Papers Ltd. v. Gurmit Singh and Ors 6 and Samsonite Corporation v. Vijay Sales (supra) were followed and applied. The single judge held that since industrial drawings and designs were for the purposes of manufacturing of filter related machines or components and as such clearly fell within the meaning of design - defined in the Designs Act. The court held that the claim of copyright in the industrial drawings and designs, which were being used for manufacturing purposes, is not maintainable. The plaintiff‟s argument that Tupperware Products were "reverse engineered" by using its drawings with computer techniques possibly by 2D or 3D scanning was held to be something that required evidence. However, prima facie, the court held that that once drawings were made for creating the ultimate product design, the copyright in the said drawings cannot be claimed under the Copyright Act. It was observed that Section 15 of the Copyright Act provides that once a design is registered under the Designs Act, copyright therein shall not subsist. Such a copyright in any design ceases even when any article to which the design has been applied has been reproduced more than 50 times 1998 (18) PTC 372 128 (2006) DLT 238 2002 (25) PTC 327 (Del.) FAO (OS) 326/2007 Page 8 by an industrial process by the owner of the copyright. The underlying message is that the Designs Act governs copyright in an industrial design. If a design is registered under that Act it is not entitled for protection under the Copyright Act. Warner Brothers v. Roadrunner 7 was cited and relied on. However, the court felt that since there were serious disputes which needed evidence before the plaintiff could establish copyright infringement by showing that its copyright survived despite design copyright registration and also show that such copyright had tremendous reputation, it would not be safe to injunct the defendants.

13

2011 (4) BCR 1 14M/s Vicco Laboratories Bombay v. M/s Hindustan Rimmer, Delhi - AIR 1979 Del 114;

FAO (OS) 326/2007 Page 13 purpose of keeping the artistic quality of the said drawings, then such 'product drawings' would not qualify as 'artistic work' under Section 2(c)(i) of the Copyright Act,1957. It is contended that the decision in Samosonite Corporation was wrongly relied on. It is emphasized that the Division Bench judgment in Micro FibreInc vs Girdhar & Co15 holds that original paintings/works which may be used to industrially produce the designed article would continue to fall within the meaning of „artistic work' defined under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act and would be entitled to the full period of copyright protection as evident from the definition of 'design' under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act. It is further submitted that moulds are 'engravings' covered within the definition of 'artistic works' under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act and that under Section 14 (c) of the Copyright Act, the Appellants have exclusive rights to reproduce the artistic work in any material form. The impugned judgment erred in not considering that the Appellants copyright in the 'moulds' and in the 'drawings' has been infringed by the defendants as they have, by a reverse process of preparing drawings from the plaintiffs products and moulds therefrom, infringed copyright twice, once in the 'drawings' and again in the 'moulds'. The Calcutta High Court in Smithkline Beecham Consumer Health Care V. Eden Cosmetics Ltd held that copyright can be claimed in a 'mould' under Section 14 (c) of the Copyright Act 1957.

************ ***********
27. Under the Designs Act, a copyright has a different connotation from a copyright under the Copyright Act. Under the Designs Act, copyright means the exclusive right to apply the design to any article in any class in which the design is registered.
28. The issue with regard to the extent of, and the conditions for the copyright protection to such an artistic work, as an artistic work under the Copyright Act, which is a design registered or capable of registration under the Designs Act, is what is dealt with, by section 15 of the Copyright Act. Once the distinction between the original artistic work and the design derived from it, and the distinction between Copyright in an original artistic work under the Copyright Act, and a copyright in a design under the Designs Act is appreciated, the meaning and purport of section 15 of the Copyright Act becomes clear.
**************** ******************** We do hold that in the original work of art, copyright would exist and the author/holder would continue enjoying the longer protection granted under the Copyright Act in respect of the original artistic work. Thus, for instance a famous painting will continue to enjoy the protection available to an artistic work under the Copyright Act. A design created from such a painting for the purpose of industrial FAO (OS) 326/2007 Page 28 application on an article so as to produce an article which has features of shape, or configuration or pattern or ornament or composition of lines or colours and which appeals to the eye would also be entitled design protection in terms of the provisions of the Designs Act. Therefore, if the design is registered under the Designs Act, the Design would lose its copyright protection under the Copyright Act but not the original painting. If it is a design registrable under the Designs Act but has not so been registered, the Design would continue to enjoy copyright protection under the Act so long as the threshold limit of its application on an article by an industrial process for more than 50 times is reached. But once that limit is crossed, it would lose its copyright protection under the Copyright Act. This interpretation, in our view, would harmonize the Copyright and the Designs Act in accordance with the legislative intent.