Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.57 seconds)
M. Radhakrishnan vs M/S. Surabhi Publications on 30 March, 2009 cites

R. Madhavan vs S.K. Nayar on 4 June, 1987

24. From the decisions referred to above, the principle that emerges is that in an action for violation of copyright it is primarily for the court to examine the publications, consider the various contentions regarding the passages said to have been copied, expressions RFA No.77/2010 35 borrowed, style, treatment, sequence, knitting together of topics, etc. and to decide whether the defendants have infringed the plaintiff's copyright and whether the similarities, if any, in the two works are important enough to be noticed or are trivial and common place or are due to common sources to which the defendants had access.
Kerala High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Cherian P. Joseph vs K. Prabhakaran Nair on 14 October, 1966

In Cherian P.Joseph v. K.Prabhakaran Nair (AIR 1967 Kerala 234) a learned single Judge of this court held that in a prosecution under section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, it is for the court to compare and find out whether the offending publication is the translation of the original. The respondents in that case were prosecuted for the offence under section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. It was alleged by the complainant that without his permission or knowledge, the accused have infringed his copyright by publishing Malayalam translations of his English copy. The trial court on a RFA No.77/2010 26 comparison of the two publications and relying on the testimony tendered by PWs 2 and 4 who had actually translated the complainant's book held that there is no consistent evidence to show that they were true translations of the complainant's books. On appeal, a learned single Judge of this court after comparing the translations with the complainant's books held that prima facie it appears that they are substantially translations of the complainant's book. It was held that in a prosecution under section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, it is a matter for the court to compare and find out whether they are translations of the original.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Ramesh Chandra Agrawal vs Regency Hospital Ltd. & Ors on 11 September, 2009

7. Per contra, Sri.N.P.Sethu, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 contended that the plaintiff has not proved any act of piracy or violation of copyright by examining experts in the literary field and has also failed to prove his case that defendants 1 to 5 have substantially copied from his work Ext.A1 when they published the book titled Sreenarayana Guru Deva Bhagavatham. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd. and Others (2009 (9) SCC 709) learned counsel contented that as the matter in dispute was outside the knowledge and experience of a lay person, there was need to hear expert opinion and in the absence of expert opinion to show that an act of piracy has been committed, the court below was perfectly right in non-suiting the plaint. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 also contended that the plaintiff cannot have any copyright in the ideas and preachings of Sree Narayanaguru and therefore for that reason also, the impugned judgment does not merit interference.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 161 - H L Dattu - Full Document
1   2 Next