9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Infringement of copyright by renting copies authorized for sale or rental outside India. 2. Importation of infringing copies into India. 3. Usage of home-viewing-only copies for rental purposes. 4. Infringement of fundamental rights under Article 19(1) of the Constitution. 5. Entitlement to an injunction. 6. Relief. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1 & 3: Infringement by Renting Copies Authorized Outside India and Usage of Home-Viewing-Only Copies The court analyzed Sections 13, 14, 40, and 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957. It was noted that copyright in cinematographic films includes the exclusive right to sell, give on hire, or offer for sale or hire any copy of the film, regardless of previous sales or hires. The court rejected the defendant's argument of "exhaustion of rights," stating that the copyright owner retains control over the commercial use of copies, even if they have been sold previously. The court emphasized that the statute does not support the principle of international exhaustion. The defendant's importation and rental of DVDs without the plaintiffs' authorization constituted infringement under Sections 51(a)(i) and 51(b)(iv). Issue 2: Importation of Infringing Copies The court explained that "parallel importation" refers to legally produced goods sold in one country and imported into another through unauthorized channels. The court cited Section 11(2) of the Customs Act and the International Copyright Order, 1999, which extend copyright protection to works first published abroad. The court held that the importation of DVDs without the plaintiffs' authorization constituted infringement under Section 51(b)(iv). The court noted that the proviso to Section 51(b)(iv) permits the importation of one copy for private and domestic use, not for commercial purposes. Issue 4: Infringement of Fundamental Rights The defendant argued that restricting its rental business infringed its fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court rejected this argument, stating that the enforcement of intellectual property rights does not infringe on fundamental rights. The court emphasized that copyright law balances the protection of creative expression and the promotion of creativity. The court held that the defendant's argument had no merit and answered the issue against the defendant. Issue 5 & 6: Entitlement to Injunction and Relief The court noted that while the plaintiffs would normally be entitled to relief, the defendant contested the plaintiffs' ownership of all the works claimed. Therefore, the matter required recording of evidence. The court confirmed the ad-interim injunction granted earlier, which would bind the defendant until the disposal of the suit. The court directed the Registry to list the suit for further proceedings. Conclusion: The court held that the defendant's importation and rental of DVDs without the plaintiffs' authorization constituted infringement of copyright. The court rejected the defendant's arguments based on the principle of exhaustion of rights and fundamental rights. The ad-interim injunction was confirmed, and the matter was directed for further proceedings to determine the plaintiffs' ownership of the works claimed.
|
