2018 (9) TMI 1960 - HC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction to examine matters relating to the Copyright Act - Rejection of petitioner's application filed under Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957 on the ground that there is no technical member (copyright) to place the application before the Appellate Board and, therefore, till such time that a technical member (copyright) is appointed, the matters relating to Copyright Act would not be listed before the Appellate Board - HELD THAT - By virtue of the Finance Act, 2017, Section 11 of the Copyright Act was amended and provisions for constitution of a Copyright Board were substituted. Therefore, with effect from 26.05.2017, there was no statutory provision for constitution of a Copyright Board. Section 11 of the Copyright Act, as substituted with effect from 26.05.2017 - with the introduction of the said statutory amendment, there is now no requirement for constitution of a Copyright Board. However, the Copyright Rules, 2013 - which came into force with effect from 14.03.2013 - were not amended to incorporate a corresponding change necessary as a consequence of the amendment in the Copyright Act. The said Rules were framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 78 of the Copyright Act, which enables the Central Government to frame rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act . Clearly, the said Rules, insofar as they provide for composition of a Copyright Board, serve no purpose of Copyright Act. Rule 3 of the said rules is superfluous since the Copyright Act, itself, does no longer provide for constitution of a Copyright Board. A conjoint reading of Section 11 of the Copyright Act and Section 83 of the Trade Marks Act clearly indicates that the Appellate Board as constituted under Section 83 of the Trade Marks Act would also have the jurisdiction to perform the functions under the Copyright Act as well. There is no dispute that an Appellate Board has been validly constituted in terms of Section 84 of the Trade Marks Act and is now functional. Thus, it is also required to exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on it by or under this Act the Copyright Act . It is directed that the petitioner's application be placed before the Appellate Board as is currently constituted. The Appellate Board shall examine the same in accordance with law - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Appellate Board to examine matters under the Copyright Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an Administrative Order declining to place their application under Section 31D of the Copyright Act before the Appellate Board due to the absence of a technical member (copyright). The respondents assured steps were being taken to appoint a technical member. Although no technical member was appointed yet, the Appellate Board functioned for Trademarks Act and Patent Act matters. The key issue was whether the Appellate Board, as constituted, could handle Copyright Act matters.

The court examined the historical context of the Copyright Board under the Copyright Act 1957 and its subsequent amendment by the Finance Act 2017, which eliminated the requirement for a Copyright Board. Despite this, the Copyright Rules 2013 were not updated to reflect this change, rendering the provision for a Copyright Board in the rules redundant. The court highlighted that the Appellate Board under the Trade Marks Act had the authority to handle matters under the Copyright Act.

Referring to the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, the court emphasized that the Appellate Board composition included a Judicial Member and a Technical Member. It was noted that while appointing a technical member (copyright) would be beneficial, the absence of one did not affect the Appellate Board's jurisdiction under the Trade Marks Act to handle Copyright Act matters. The court concluded that the Appellate Board, as constituted under the Trade Marks Act, had the jurisdiction to examine Copyright Act matters and directed the petitioner's application to be considered by the Appellate Board accordingly.

In light of the above analysis, the court set aside the impugned order and instructed the Appellate Board to review the petitioner's application as per the law. The judgment clarified that the Appellate Board, functioning under the Trade Marks Act, was empowered to handle matters under the Copyright Act. All pending applications were disposed of as per the directive.