Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)Section 35 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
V. Govindan vs E.M. Gopalakrishna Kone And Anr. on 1 December, 1954
In V. Govindan v. Gopalakrishna, AIR 1955 Mad 391 the plaintiff had published an English-Tamil dictionary which had been compiled by one K. The defendant had subsequently published another English-Tamil dictionary. The plaintiff sued the defendant alleging that the copyright in his work had been infringed by the defendant. It was observed that
"Regarding ............... plea of "common source", it is well known that a person relying on it must show that he went to the common source from which he borrowed employing his skill, labour and brains and that he did not merely do the work of the copyist, by copying away from a work" (of another person)
"...............a man is not allowed to appropriate for himself the arrangement, sequence, order, idiom etc. employed by another, using his brains, skill and labours. ............... In modern complex
society provisions have to be made for protecting every man's copyright, whether big or small whether involving a high degree of originality, as in a new poem or picture, or only originality at the vanishing point as in a law report."
The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Section 2 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Lallubhai Motiram vs Laxmishankar Ambalal on 3 January, 1944
In Lallubhai v. Laxmishankar, AIR 1945 Bom 51 the plaintiff claimed copyright in a picture drawn and coloured by him of a deity. He alleged that his copyright in the said picture had been infringed by a picture made by defendant No. 1. It was observed that
"...............the plaintiff's 1938 picture
is no slavish copy of the idol...............
S.K. Dutt vs Law Book Co. And Ors. on 8 December, 1953
In S. K. Dutt v. Law Book Co, AIR 1954 All 570 the plaintiff had alleged that that the copyright in his work "Indian Partnership Act, by Mukerji and Dutt" had been infringed by the second defendant in his publication entitled "Law Book Company's Commentaries of law and Practice of Partnership and Private Companies in India". It was observed that in order to construe infringement of a man's copyright there must be sufficient infringement of the work. "Fair Dealing by any one has been kept out of the mischief of the Copyright Act". It was further observed:--
Maulvi Omar Ali Barlashkar vs Jnan Ranjan Mitra on 19 March, 1935
In Omar Ali v. Jnan Ranjan Mitra, (1936) 163 Ind Cas 576 (Cal)
the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had in publishing a book named 'Bhugal Sopan' committed piracy of the general plan, arrangement, style and contents of his book entitled Prathmic Bhuparichaya."
1