Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.20 seconds)Section 19 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The Copyright Act, 1957
Eastern Book Company & Ors vs D.B. Modak & Anr on 12 December, 2007
It is argued that the three floral designs used by Servewell for its trays are neither original nor
works of art, as they merely copy prior publications. Dolphin also says that the floral designs are,
in any case not entitled to copyright protection, since they do not satisfy the test of original
artistic works, as there is no creative element. Dolphin relies on the recent ruling of the Supreme
Court, in Eastern Book Co. v. D.B. Modak, 2008 (1) SCC 1. It is submitted that copyright
registration does not in any manner affect the right of Dolphin to submit that the works in
question are not copyrightable, or entitled to copyright protection, unlike in the case of trademark
registration.
Section 2 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 479 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Microfibers Inc. vs Girdhar & Co. & Anr. on 28 May, 2009
14. It is submitted that Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, provides that where a
design, capable of being registered under the Designs Act, is not so registered, copyright (in such
design) shall cease as soon as any article, to which the design has been applied is reproduced
more than 50 times by an industrial process by the owner of the copyright or with his licence, by
any other person. Relying on the Division Bench ruling in Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. &
Anr., 2009 (40) PTC 519 (Del), Dolphin submits that in this case, the Court ruled that there is
lesser copyright protection, in the case of industrial designs. The relevant portion of the said
Division Bench judgment reads as follows: