Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)Section 13 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Kanungo Media (P) Ltd. vs Rgv Film Factory And Ors. on 27 February, 2007
The two judgments [ E.M.
Forster v. A.N. Parasuram, 1964 SCC OnLine Mad 23 : AIR 1964 Mad
Page No.14 of 25
18 August 2025
::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2025 21:27:22 :::
Ajit Pathrikar IA-3347-2024-FC
331] , [R. Radha Krishnan v. A.R. Murugadoss, 2013 SCC OnLine Mad
2968 : (2013) 5 LW 429] of the Madras High Court cited above and the
judgment [Kanungo Media (P) Ltd. v. RGV Film Factory, 2007 SCC
OnLine Del 314 : ILR (2007) 1 Del 1122] of the Delhi High Court in our
view, lay down the correct law.
E.M. Forster And Ors. vs A.N. Parasuram on 9 January, 1964
The two judgments [ E.M.
Forster v. A.N. Parasuram, 1964 SCC OnLine Mad 23 : AIR 1964 Mad
Page No.14 of 25
18 August 2025
::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2025 21:27:22 :::
Ajit Pathrikar IA-3347-2024-FC
331] , [R. Radha Krishnan v. A.R. Murugadoss, 2013 SCC OnLine Mad
2968 : (2013) 5 LW 429] of the Madras High Court cited above and the
judgment [Kanungo Media (P) Ltd. v. RGV Film Factory, 2007 SCC
OnLine Del 314 : ILR (2007) 1 Del 1122] of the Delhi High Court in our
view, lay down the correct law.
Section 63 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
R.Radha Krishnan vs Mr.A.R.Murugadoss on 25 September, 2013
17. Subsequently, in R. Radha Krishnan v. A.R. Murugadoss [R. Radha
Krishnan v. A.R. Murugadoss, 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 2968 : (2013) 5
LW 429] , the Madras High Court followed the decision of the Delhi High
Court in Kanungo Media case [Kanungo Media (P) Ltd. v. RGV Film
Factory, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 314 : ILR (2007) 1 Del 1122] and rejected
an injunction for restraining the defendant from using the title of the
plaintiff's film "Raja Rani". The Madras High Court considered various
other decisions and held that the words "Raja Rani" are words of
common parlance which denote the king or the queen and cannot be
protected under the law of copyright.
Happy Maxwell vs Maxwell M. Chennur on 25 November, 2022
In Maxwell v. Hogg [Maxwell v. Hogg, (1867) LR 2 Ch App 307], the
question was whether the defendant had infringed the copyright of the
plaintiff in the title of a monthly magazine called Belgravia. Referring to
the title Belgravia the Court observed : (LR pp. 317-18)
"... It is quite absurd to suppose that the legislature, in providing for
the registration of that which was to be the indicium of something
outside the registry, in the shape of a volume or part of a volume,
meant that, by the registration of one word, copyright in that one word
could be obtained, even although that one word should be registered as
what was to be the title of a book or of a magazine. ... I apprehend,
indeed, that if it were necessary to decide the point, it must be held
that there cannot be what is termed copyright in a single word,
although the word should be used as a fitting title for a book. The
copyright contemplated by the Act must be not in a single word, but in
some words in the shape of a volume, or part of a volume, which is
Page No.12 of 25
18 August 2025
::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2025 21:27:22 :::
Ajit Pathrikar IA-3347-2024-FC
communicated to the public, by which the public are benefited, and in
return for which a certain protection is given to the author of the work.
All arguments, therefore, for the purpose of maintaining this bill on the
ground of copyright appear to me to fall to the ground."
1