Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (4.56 seconds)
Documents citing Espn Star Sports vs Global Broadcast News Ltd. & Ors. on 26 September, 2008

Super Cassettes Industries Limited vs Mr Chintamani Rao & Ors. on 11 November, 2011

48. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs Super Cassettes and Yashraj Films submit that on the facts of the ESPN judgment [ESPN Star Sports Vs. Global Broadcast News, 2008 (38) PTC 477 (Del)] which the Defendants rely on, the issue considered was with respect to the exception contained in Section 39 to the broadcast reproduction right. It is submitted that in the case of broadcast of cricket matches, although the visual recording of the cricket match becomes a cinematograph film, it does not become the film of any underlying copyrighted work but only of certain events. In the present case, the Plaintiff‟s cause of action is the infringing use of its copyrighted works by the Defendants‟ broadcasting of them, which is a completely different situation.
Delhi High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 9 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Star India Private Limited vs Department Of Industrial Policy And ...

In this regard, we also deem it appropriate to refer to a judgment of a Division Bench of Delhi High Court being a judgment in ESPN Star Sports Vs. Global Broadcast News Ltd. & ors. reported in 2008 (38) PTC 477 (Del.) (DB). It was pressed into service by learned Senior counsel Mr.P.Chidambaram to say that even broadcasting of a cricket match for which rights were purchased at a huge cost by broadcasters was held to be a Copyright and that unauthorised broadcasting of such cricket match was held to be an infringement of BRR of broadcaster. To drive home this aspect of the matter, learned senior counsel Mr.P.Chidambaram took us through paragraphs 9,10,14 to 17, 19 and 20 of the said judgment. Considering the enormous significance of copyright / content and carriage in the instant case, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the said paragraphs which read as follows :
Madras High Court Cites 175 - Cited by 0 - M Sundar - Full Document

Akuate Internet Services Pvt. Ltd. & ... vs Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. on 30 August, 2013

29. Learned senior counsel submitted that the observations and findings of the learned single judge are unimpeachable, because the nature of the rights, are not proximate to copyright; they really emanate out of broadcasting, which is covered by a separate Chapter of the Copyright Act. Even the rights claimed in this case are not covered as broadcasting rights. It was argued that the best argument could have been that Section 16 precluded any rights akin to copyright. However, the rights flowed out of broadcasting rights, and not copyrights; further, counsel contended, a crucial element was that Section 16 stood excluded in respect of broadcasting rights. Relying on the ESPN case, it was submitted that if Parliament had intended Section 16 to apply in respect of broadcasting rights, it would have said so. The omission was conscious and deliberate, FAO(OS) Nos.153, 160 & 161/2013 Page 27 which meant that only those provisions of the Copyright Act mentioned in Section 39A would apply, nothing else. The findings of the Single judge were therefore, justified.
Delhi High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 5 - S R Bhat - Full Document

The Indian Performing Rights vs Branch Manager on 3 March, 2009

14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in ESPN STAR SPORTS v. GLOBAL BROADCAST NEWS LIMITED AND OTHERS (CDJ 2008 DHC 156). That was a case where the plaintiff, contending that it had obtained the sole and exclusive licence from various sports bodies, laid a civil action for infringement of copyright. In the factual background of the above case, the Supreme Court held that the suit was not maintainable as the owner of the Copyright in an action initiated by the exclusive licensee was not made a party as mandated under section 61 of the Copyright Act. The above ratio does not apply to the fact situation of this case where an assignee and not a licensee has approached this court seeking the relief under the Copyright Act without arraying the assignor of the copyright.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next