IPR is the set of rights given to the person who made or create a property using his mind and labor. In order to motivate the creations and to exploit commercially, certain protection and security were given to the owners. One such type of IPR is Copyright Registration which gives protection for the works related literacy, musical, dramatic, sound recording, artistic and also for producers of cinematograph films. The rights of produce, reproduce, perform, translate and broadcast were provided under the Copyright Act, 1957 which acts as remedies in case of copyright infringement. Such rights indirectly restrict others from not interfering into the works of owners. In case if anyone intrudes into their work it is considered to be infringement and for that various remedies were provided under the act.
As per the copyright act concern, there are three types of remedies available for the infringement of copyright. Those are civil remedies, criminal remedies, and administrative remedies. Under s.55 of the act deals with civil remedies, firstly the interlocutory injunction mostly everyone will claim for the injunction, secondly, the compensation which can be the loss occurred to the owners or the profit made by the person using the work or any other loss. The court also may issue Anton pillar order, which gives additional exclusive rights for the owner’s lawyers to search and seize the respective work from the defendant place. And also can direct the defendant to give information about the suppliers and consumers of such works. Another remedy is Mareva injunction i.e. when the defendant intentionally delaying the process, the court can order to surrender a part of defendant property to the court as a security. In case any information is required from a party who is not a party to the suit the court may issue an order of Norwich Pharmacal order to gain information.
Regarding the criminal remedies, the act expresses imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years with or without a fine viz. sum of 50,000rs to 2 lakh rupees. Additional may order to search and seizure of infringing goods and to give it back to the owner. When an importing of work leads to infringement, the owner can avail the administrative remedies i.e. he can approach the registrar of copyright to stop importation, and he can seizure and delivery the works to the owner.
In case you have any query related to this topic, you may drop in an email at firstname.lastname@example.org or givs us a call at +91 880 092 6752
In the copyright either directly or indirectly various infringements are occurring and numerous of suits were made in order to get a remedy and to claim compensation. One such of a case is Thiagarajan kumararaja v. M/s Capital film works and Anr, [O.S appeal no. 20 of 2017(Mad)] were the plaintiff, the scriptwriter of ‘Aaranya kaandam’ a Tamil movie claimed copyright infringement as to the dubbing of the movie into other languages by the producer.
However the court held that the producer is the owner of the work and he has every right over the movie, under the term ‘communication’ he can dub the movie. And in Neetu singh v. Rajiv saumitra [CS (COMM) 935/2016(Del)], were regarding reproduce and selling of books by the defendant who is the director of the company and which made by the plaintiff an employee. The issue is the employee and employer agreement doesn’t clearly express the duty of employee so such literacy work won’t come under the course of employment. And the court held that the action of directors leads to infringement of copyright of the plaintiff and held to compensate. And another interesting case is Dashrath B Rathod & Ors v. Fox Star Studios India pvt ltd & Ors [C.S 196 of 2017(Bom)], were the plaintiff approached the court seeking injunction at the last moment of movie ‘phillauri’ for infringement of his copyright and court found out there is not prima facia for such infringement and such last minute seeking injunction is not fair and won’t be appreciable, which puts pressure on the court as well on defendant so, the court ordered to pay fine about 5 lakh rupees. In Anil Kapoor Film Co pvt ltd v. Make My Day Entertainment & Anr [ C.S 319 of 2017(Bom)], were the issue regarding passing off by the defendant movie title over the plaintiff’s, and the plaintiff seeks for an interim injunction. However, the court refused to grant an injunction and stated that the movie title can’t be protected by copyright.
In case you have any query related to this topic, you may drop in an email at email@example.com or givs us a call at +91 8800926752
Write for Company360.in and be famous fill this simple form and our team will contact you.