Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 40 (0.46 seconds)
Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Fantasy Sports Myfab11 Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 17 October, 2023 cites

Eastern Book Company & Ors vs D.B. Modak & Anr on 12 December, 2007

"20. In the present case, the plaintiffs claim concerns mathematical questions and answers. Besides asserting the work put in by Dr. Roy, and the effort in arranging such questions at appropriate stages, chapters or units in the textbooks, the plaintiff do not show how such effort is original to conform to the minimum degree of creativity mandated by Indian law, post Eastern Book Company (supra). Mathematical questions are expression of laws of nature. The "discovery" of such laws cannot confer monopoly to those who describe it. The reason is that language is a limited medium, which enables description of such laws of nature - in only a few ways. Recognition of copyright as inhering in the questions themselves (as the plaintiff suggest the court to do), without existence of the "creative" element of originality would deny access to ideas, thus robbing one of the primary objectives of copyright law (promotion of creativity) of vitality, thereby stifling intellectual growth. Interestingly, section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970 explicitly denies any form of patent protection to a mathematical method or algorithms. Prima facie, Parliament could not have intended that innovations such as new mathematical questions, denied benefit of patent protection--which if granted is of restricted duration--could be refused, but a wider protection in time, by way of copyright, could have been granted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 46 - P P Naolekar - Full Document

R.G Anand vs M/S. Delux Films & Ors on 18 August, 1978

In R.G. Anand (supra), the Supreme Court has held that similarity of the alleged infringing work to the authors' or proprietors' copyrighted work does not of itself establish copyright infringement, if the similarity results from the fact that both works deal with the same subject or have the same common source. It was also held that appropriation must be substantial. Relevant paragraphs are as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 83 - S M Ali - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next