9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 873X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been paid and, thus, the plaintiffs are the exclusive owners of the copyright in this serial. Balaji's services were engaged by way of contract of service and as such the plaintiffs are the first copyright owners under Section 17 of the Copyright Act. The theme of the serial involves a renowned business house known as Virani Group, headed by Dhirubhai Virani. Dhirubhai has three sons, Mansukh, Himmat and Jamnadas and a married daughter Pradnya. The family resides in palace like bungalow Shantiniketan at Juhu. The story involves around Amba Virani, wife of Dhirubhai Virani, her three daughters-in-law Savita, Daksha and Gayatri and grand-daughter-in-law Tulsi. Savita's eldest son Mihir marries Tulsi, a simple girl from an ordinary middle class family, against the wish of his mother, who wanted him to marry Payal, daughter of a big businessman. The other members of the family excluding Savita, Daksha and Gayatri are happy with the marriage. They attempted, after marriage, all possible tactics to create a barrier between Mihir and Tulsi to break the marriage. Their plans fail. Soon after marriage Mihir meets with an accident on a business tour. A dead body resembling Mih ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... serial with the commercial would show that there is substantial copying. Comparisons are set out in paragraph 12 of the plaint. It is then contended that the overall impression of any viewer who sees both the works would be that the subsequent work of the defendants is a copy of the original work of the plaintiffs, authorized by the plaintiffs and/or licensed by the plaintiffs. An average person viewing the defendants commercial would immediately notice the glaring identity similarity between the plaintiffs' serial and the defendants' commercial and such a person would get an impression that the defendants' commercial has been authored by the plaintiffs or has been produced under the permission or licensed by the plaintiffs. Further an ordinary person would get an impression, that the plaintiffs who are the producers and proprietors of the serial KYUN KISAAS BHI KABHI BAHU THI are whole heartedly and unreservedly endorsing the product of the defendant No. 2. An average viewer would, thus, have an unmistakable impression that there is connection in the course of business and/or trade between the plaintiffs in the said serial and the defendants' and their commercial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... just contrary. By the defendants telecasting the commercial, and that too, in close proximity to the areas of activity of the plaintiffs, an erroneous impression has been created that the defendants are authorized and entitled to make use of the works in the serial. Creation of such misrepresentation and confusion and probability of apprehension is apparent, given consideration to the repute of the defendants. Various reliefs are prayed for and as the matter involves violation of intellectual property rights and as the Court is the guardian of public interest, injunction must follow and other reliefs as prayed for. The motion taken out is supported by the affidavit Sheenaz R. Patel which reiterates and places reliance on the averments of the plaint. 3. Defendant No. 2 has filed a reply opposing the grant of relief to the plaintiffs through an authorized signatory Shefali Chaddha. It is the case of the defendant No. 2 that it belongs to the P G group of companies which carries on business worldwide as a leading multinational group of companies in the world. The products emanating from P G group of companies are well known for its superior quality and technical excellence. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary, 2002 and defendant No. 2 has incurred a huge expenditure. The commercial was submitted for the purpose of airing it on Star T.V. it was accepted and as such the plaintiffs/its sister concern has acknowledged that the Tide T.V. commercial was not objectionable. It is further submitted that there is no copyright in an idea, concept or theme. The defendants have put the plaintiffs to a strict proof insofar as its contention that the programme enjoys tremendous popularity. It is further denied that the alleged artistic work constitutes an original artistic work. The defendants deny and do not admit that, the work was commissioned by the plaintiffs and made by Balaji pursuant to the Agreement. The title KYUN KI SAAS BHI KABHI BAHU THI is a commonly known saying/proverb/creation which has not been devised by the plaintiffs or by Balaji. The manner in which it is written does not constitute an artistic work and the same is not copyrightable. The depiction of overlapping bonds in the logo is the age old expression of the 'saas' handing over the keys to the 'bahu'. This portrayal is in the pubic domain and does not constitute an original artistic work. The defendants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the serial has acquired by goodwill and/or reputation in India as is alleged or its popularity on its character. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs are not entitled to exclusively encash upon the alleged goodwill of the serial and its characters. It is specifically denied that airing of Tide T.V. commercial would require any authorization from the plaintiffs for merchandising purposes. It is also averred that even assuming that there are some features of defendant No. 2's Tide T.V. commercial found in the serial, of the plaintiffs, even then the alleged copying does not amount to a reproduction or substantial reproduction of the plaintiffs' serial, that is, alleged copying, if any, is of an unsubstantial part of the serial and, hence does not amount to infringement. The alleged logo at Exhibit 'C' does not constitute a separate work or original artistic work. Without prejudice to the aforesaid copyright, it does not vest in the plaintiffs under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 or under Clause 8 of the Agreement. At any event, there is no copying, much less substantial copying by the defendants in view of the independent creation of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is contended that unlike the U.K. and Australia Copyright Acts, the word 'copy' is not defined in the Indian Copyright Act and, therefore, recourse must be had to the technical meaning of the word 'copy'. Reference is placed on the Oxford English Dictionary and Random House Dictionary of the English Language as to the meaning of the word 'copy'. It is then contended that the definition of 'infringing copy' is contained in Section 2(m)(ii) of the Act. Hence, imitating the film or making another film which bears likeness or striking resemblance to a copyrighted film would amount to making a copy of the film and, therefore infringement of the copyright in the film. Assuming that to establish infringement, copying should be of a substantial part of the plaintiffs' film, the test of substantiality must be from the point of view of the infringing work. It is, therefore, the duty of the Court to ascertain whether a substantial part of the defendants' work consists of a copy of the plaintiffs work. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in R.G. Anand v. Delux Films and Ors., . It is then contended that substantiality is not the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... self and not a reproduction of the copyrighted film, that is another film which merely resembles the copyrighted film. From the affidavits of Kumuda Rao and Shetty it is clear that the defendants have not copied the film but have made a new film. The only contention of the plaintiffs is that the film made/shot by the defendants resembles the plaintiffs' film and, therefore, constitutes reproduction. Reliance is placed on various judgments. The defendants, alternatively, contend that the plaintiffs' film and the defendants' film are different. There is no copying or substantial copying of plaintiffs' work, hence, no question of any copyright infringement can arise. It is also once again alternatively submitted that what is to be compared is the 'whole' of the respective works and 'not part' and if so compared, there is no copying or substantial copying. 6. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the submissions as to whether the commercial film made by the defendants is a copy of the plaintiffs' film. Firstly, let me refer to the meaning of the word 'copy' as set out in the Oxford English Dictionary which defines the word 'copy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Skone James on copyright, Thirteenth Edition, at paragraph 3.29, some portions of which may be reproduced: ......it has been stated that skill labour and judgment merely in the process of copying cannot, confer originality and the mere copyist cannot have protection of his copy. Particularly, therefore, where the reproduction is in the same medium as the original, there must be more than an exact reproduction to secure copyright; there must be some element of material alteration or embellishment which suffices to make the totality of the work an original work. If the original, in the case of a painting, is used merely as a model to give the idea of the new work or, in the case of a photograph, merely as a basis to be worked up by photographic process to something different, then the net work may be entitled to protection; but, if the result is simply a salvish copy, it will not protected. The same Authors in the Fourteenth Edition in paragraph 7.98 have dealt with Films . The learned Authors have stated as under: It is an infringement of the copyright in a film to make a copy of it, or a substantial part of it, whether directly or indirectly and whether transiently o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordings. In Telmak Teleproducts (Aust.) Pty. Limited v. Bond International, 1985 (5) IPR 203, the defendants made, an advertisement film for the same products as were contained in the plaintiffs' advertising film and the Court found that the products of the rivals (which were advertised) and the films were also similar. As the defendants, however, had made their own film, though it was similar to the plaintiffs' film, the Court held that the making of the defendants' film was not an act within the categories of exclusive rights conferred on the copyright owner of the plaintiffs' film. The defendants' film had been shot and sound recorded by the defendants own agents. The defendants' film was not copied from the recorded medium of the plaintiffs' film. It was, therefore, held that the defendants had not made a copy of the plaintiffs' film. The defendants had not copied the visuals, images and sounds which together made up the plaintiffs' cinematographic film. The defendants had not caused the plaintiffs' film to be seen in the public, therefore, there was no act of the defendants which fell within the categories of exclusive rights conferre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the Act the facts on record and the cases discussed it is clear that the defendants made their own film independently. The film of the defendants, therefore is not a copy and, therefore, would not amount to an infringement of the plaintiffs copyright in its film considering the language of Section 14(d) of the Copyright Act. 7. Then the issue to be addressed is whether there is substantial copying which would give rise to a cause of action to the plaintiffs. At this prima facie stage once the view is taken that the defendants' film is not a copy of the plaintiffs film, it really would not require that this second submission be considered. However, as it has been advanced, it may be dealt with briefly. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the test of substantially must be from the point infringing the work. Hence, the Court must ascertain whether a substantial part of the defendants; work consists of a copy of the plaintiff's work. See. R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (supra). Relying on Copinger paragraph 8.26 it is also submitted that substantiality is not a question of quantity but of quality. In the present case the opening sequence is common each episode ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently. The T.V. commercial of the defendant No. 2 promotes the product Tide detergent. The commercial does not purport to be nor can be taken by anyone viewing it to be a cinematographic film/serial at all, much less as the plaintiffs' film. The T.V. commercial has a beginning of about 8 to 10 seconds as prelude to the Tide detergent T.V. commercial but the major and real substantial part consists of the Tide detergent. The over all impact on the viewer which is sought to be impacted is of the Tide detergent. The defendants have placed on record material to show that the number of the characters in the film are different The young lady whose remarriage is proposed is present in the defendants commercial but is absent in the corresponding part of the plaintiffs' film. The script of the two films is different. No portion of the dialogues or scenes are common. In the defendants' commercial the other family members present are opposed to be proposal of remarriage and the elderly lady raises the hand to strike the person making such proposal. In this segment of the plaintiffs' film, the family members present all support the proposal of remarriage. In the defendants' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Limited and Ors., 1940 AC 112 (PC); Ladbroke (Football) Limited v. William Hill (Football) Limited, 1964 (1) WLR 273; Merchandising Corporation of America Inc. and Ors. v. Harpbond Limited and Ors., 1983 FSR 32; R.G. Anand v. Delux films and Ors. (supra) and Fritco Lay Limited v. Uncle Chips Private Limited, 2000 PTC 341. Applying the tests on the material as it stands there is no substantial copying on facts. 8. In respect of the contention of the photographs taken from film it may be noted that the contention is contrary to the plain wording in Section 14. The section itself speaks about the work or any substantial part thereof. They also fully, apply to Section 14(d)(i). There is no material on record to hold that the defendants, have taken a photograph of any image of the plaintiffs' film. No single image is identical, as even in the first image there are material differences. The image/still allegedly copied and incorporated in the Tide T.V. commercial is not a 'photograph' as defined, which provides that where anything which forms part of or is included in the cinematographic film does not fall within the definition of photograph. The frame or image which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 2(s), 'a frame or image which forms a part of the film is excluded from photograph'. Hence, such image does not fall within the meaning of photograph in Section, 14(d)(i). Since the plaintiffs have not made a photograph of any image from the plaintiffs' film the question of infringement by copying a single still does not arise. Further, there are several differences even in the first image which forms part of the defendants' film. Considering this and as Section 16 of the Act provides that there is no copyright except as provided in the Copyright Act, 1957 or under any law for the time being in force, a single image or a single frame taken from a cinematographic film cannot constitute infringement of copyright as it is not photograph within the meaning of Section 2(s) and hence not a copy of the film within Section 14(d)(i). For all the aforesaid reasons, it is clear that, insofar as contention is concerned, the plaintiffs have not been able to establish that the defendants have infringed their copyright by making a copy of their film or a substantial part of their film. That contention must, therefore, be rejected. 9. Next submission to be dealt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ossible to accept this contention on behalf of the defendants that considering Section 55 of the Act the plaintiffs not being the owners of the copyright are not entitled to sue and seek reliefs. The plaintiffs have sought to on the Agreement dated 9th April, 2000 under which the plaintiffs are claiming right. By virtue of Article 6(a) and Article 8 all rights of Balaji have been given/assigned in favour of the plaintiffs. I, therefore, do not accept the contention of the defendants that at this prima facie stage the plaintiffs have been unable to show their copyright in the artistic work. Is the logo lettering as an original artistic work Section 13(1)(a) of the Act provides that copyright can subsist only in an original artistic work. The contention of the defendant is that the logo consisting of the two hands is a symbol in common use and in the public domain and open to anyone to use. Reliance is placed on the affidavit of Shefali Chaddha dated 14th June, 2002 and the wedding invitation card annexed thereto. The holding hands it is contended are a hackneyed and well known form of representing the handing over of something from one to another and are a commonly used symbol. P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in common law, the Court will guide itself on basis of strong common sense approach to the facts of each case. It is contended that the Courts must adopt the tort of passing off to fit changing situations. In the instant case it is contended by the plaintiffs' that the motive for the defendants misappropriation of the plaintiffs' goodwill is obvious. The defendants have attempted to encash the goodwill generated by the plaintiffs serial to boost the sale of the defendants' product. This is actionable per se. If such conduct is not injuncted, it would amount to a licence to every defendant in the case like the present to appropriate the benefit of goodwill assiduously built up by another. The law of passing off, it is contended, is meant to counter precisely such conduct. The classic submission of passing off, it is contended requires (a) existence of goodwill or reputation attached to the plaintiffs' serial and characters in the serial in the minds of the public viewers; (b) misrepresentation by the defendants to the public such as is likely to lead the public to believe that either their is a business transaction/association between the serial's character or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... priation by the defendants of the plaintiffs' characters and representing a connection between their commercial and the characters therein, is bound to cause loss and of damage to the plaintiffs directly by way of loss in merchandising inasmuch as the, owner of such characters and the, serial would have been able to merchandise characters. The defendants by making use of the characters for use of a commercial and unauthorizedly are utilizing the goodwill of the plaintiffs' characters without paying in licence fees to the plaintiffs and without the plaintiffs' permission. The defendants therefore have deprived the plaintiffs of such licence fees and merchandising profits. Further, as the plaintiffs have no control of the quality over the defendants product any inadequacy or shortfall in the same would rub off directly on the plaintiffs. The defects in the defendant's commercial could in the long run adversely affect the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' serial. As the Court in the passing off action is concerned with 'likelihood damages', it is submitted that there is sufficient cause for loss and damage made out by the plaintiffs. Reliance in support thereo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcial gain. The defendants wish to boost the sale of their products by encashing the goodwill of the plaintiffs. A more fraudulent case than the present case would be difficult to find given the fact that the defendants are a large multinational Company and are well advised. It is all the more obvious that there is no innocence in the action of the defendants. Reliance is placed on the observations by Judge Murphy in the second Lone Ranger case, which are as under : Where a defendant expressly and deliberately commits a fraud by representing that his goods or services are those of the plaintiff, or that plaintiff is in some way connected with or interested in his business, equity will grant relief. Even in the absence of express and deliberate fraud equitable relief will be granted where there is shown bad faith on the defendant's part, i.e., an intention of the defendant to gain advantage from the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs trade-mark or trade-name..... : Coming to the test of common field of activity, it is contended, that there is no necessity for both the parties to be in the same field of activity. Reliance is placed on Kirloskar Diesel Recon. (P.) Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e paragraph itself would clarifying that the owners of the goodwill in the serial and the fictional characters in it are the plaintiffs. The submission that Star Plus is the owner of the goodwill and not the plaintiffs is misconceived. It is well known that in a given case, the plaintiff himself may be unknown to customers, it is necessary to show to the customer who knew whatsoever about the plaintiff. It is sufficient to prove that the purchaser of his goods recognised, by the use of the marks in question in connection with them, that they were goods of a particular class, and to show that such class is, in fact, constituted by his goods. See paragraph 16.32 of Kerry's Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names-12th Edition. It is, therefore, submitted that the plaintiffs have established that fictional characters can enjoy goodwill and the goodwill in such fictional characters belong to the owner of the serial. Adverting to the defendants' submission that no passing off action will lie until the plaintiffs involve themselves in any character merchandising and merchandising the characters it is contended is misconceived. The judgments relied upon by the defendants, it is conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... public associating the defendants' commercial with the plaintiffs film/serial cannot and does not arise, on the plaintiffs own case and averments in paragraph 19 of the plaint. This rules out any possibility or likelihood of the one being taken by the other or of the public being, misled of one with the other or the public having association with the other. The plaintiffs, therefore, fail in the alleged claim of passing off on their own case and averments in the plaint. 12. It will, therefore, be essential to examine whether the plaintiff has established the basic ingredients giving rise to a cause of action in a case of breach of the tort of passing off. The three predicates to be established may be reiterated as under: (1) The plaintiffs goodwill and reputation, in the mark amongst the public (2) The defendants misrepresentation that the article is that of the plaintiffs; and (3) Actual, damages or real likelihood of damage to the plaintiffs by the defendants' act. The two items being considered are prima facie different-one a serial of several episodes to the knowledge of the public and the other a fleeting commercial of totally 30 seconds, of which the breach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n is very much doubtful. It is, therefore, clear considering the material on record and the test of a prudent person, it is not possible that a reasonable person or the public would be misled or confused in any manner to believe and/or associate the defendants' commercial with the plaintiffs' cinematographic film and or the characters therein. The second predicate which is to be considered is whether the defendants are guilty of misrepresentation and thereby occasioned damage to the plaintiffs or possibility of damage. The plaintiffs' serial is a film which has its viewers and which is not telecast on the same Channel as that of the defendants' commercial. It is only in the event those watching the plaintiffs' film happen also to come across the defendants' commercial, an occasion would arise of misrepresentation. The defendants' commercial cannot in anyway affect the viewership of the plaintiffs' film or the potential TRPs or sponsorship value/possibilities thereof. Therefore, the possibility of any damage caused not any likelihood of damage, much less of real damage being caused, or too remote. The field which the plaintiffs' serial occupies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m will think that what he has seen elsewhere is the plaintiffs' film is necessarily associated with the plaintiffs' serial or is put out by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have no monopoly over such incidents/scenes and at least no evidence has been produced to establish this, which is purely a question of fact. The entire case of the plaintiffs is based on an incident in one of the episodes of the film. The incident is an ordinary serial one in a family. It is not exclusive or particular to the plaintiffs' film. Probably the public view the scene without any regard to its source and solely, as a part of the defendants work promoting the product 'Tide'. At any rate, there is no material, at this stage, to hold that the public associates the defendants' commercial Tide detergent as coming from or of the plaintiffs. The case of the plaintiffs is, as of today, that they have not endorsed any products based on the serial or its characters. The necessary element of citation required has, therefore, not been established as such, the plaintiffs would not entitled to reliefs as prayed. Let me now independently deal with the claim of passing off on the basis of cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aimed that it did have such a licence, began to sell the lollipops under the brand name Kojak Lollies . The plaintiff commenced an action. The question posed was, do those two fields of activity interest in any such way as would enable the Universal City Studios to claim that, by putting out their lollipops as Kojakpops , the plaintiffs were infringing any right of Universal City Studios? The Court observed in its judgment, the answer to that is in the negative, because there is no relevant field of activity either actual or existing in the mind of the public which is common to both of them. The Court observed further that the business of what is called character merchandising, has become very well known in our present times and everyone who has a character, whether real or fictional, to exploit, does so by the grant of licences to people who wish to use the name of the real or fictional character, but when one has a fictional character such as Kojak, obviously Kojak in that sense does not exist and no one would imagine that the lollipops put out by the plaintiff Company have been actually endorsed by Kojak, still less by the actor who plays the fictional character. The Court obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be taken by the public to be toy representations of the Muppet characters; that the first plaintiff had established a business reputation in Australia in relation to toys. The Muppet characters were only recognised because they were out of the first plaintiffs' show and there was an association in the minds of the public between the first plaintiff and the representations of its characters in any form, and certainly in toys of the present sort, and that established the reputation of the first plaintiff in them; the third plaintiff has no such reputation; until it established itself as licensee and carried on business in this field it would not be proper to assume an association between it and the sale of the Muppet characters as would entitle it to claim that the defendants' toys were being passed off as products emanating from it or as products made under its licence; that the defendants and the plaintiffs were operating in a common field of business activity. The business of the plaintiffs, and that of the first plaintiff in particular, was to get its character reproductions on to the, market in various forms and sold to the public; this was done through licensing arrang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll so far as any character in their film/serial is concerned. There is no question, therefore, of any character in the serial having acquired any public recognition or reputation or an independent life of its own separately from its position as a character in the serial. There is no material on record to show that any character in the serial has become a commodity in its own right, independently of the film/serial. In these circumstances, the question cannot arise of the plaintiffs making any claim to exclusive right to a character or be entitled to any reliefs on the alleged basis that the public associates any character in the serial exclusively with the plaintiffs, in relation to the business of character merchandising. On the facts of this case, there is no fictional character involved like 'Superman', Teletubbies' or 'Lone Ranger'. In the serial there are ordinary people in common life who play the role of some character or the other. At least from the material on record there is nothing special in any, of the characters of which it can be said' that they have gained any public recognition for itself with an independent life outside the serial. This, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... racter by itself is not sufficient. However, it is not possible to rule out the proposition that the mere potential for merchandising is not sufficient to maintain an action, A character may have grown out beyond the film when the people would identify and, therefore, there is a probability of it being potentially merchandised. On the facts of this case there is no such material, of any from character setting this roles None of the models or actors have acquired such fame or a character has become identifiable in the minds of the public, which can be said to be particularly merchandised. The plea of the plaintiff is that the public associate the characters. Tulsi, Savita and J.D. with the plaintiffs serial. There is nothing to show that the characters Tulsi, Savita or J.D. by themselves are capable of being marketable independently or jointly. They are merely the main characters in the serial as the material now stands. In the instant case, the defendants are merely promoting their own product, that is, Tide detergent. Can it be said that the defendants' act of promoting their product Tide would in any manner affect the plaintiffs' future potential of merchandising the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence the Court must be satisfied that there is a real possibility of confusion Miss World (Jersey) Limited Anr., (supra) and Kerly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names, Thirteenth Edition, Paragraphs 14.75 to 14.77. Establishing passing off by goods in which the claimant does not trade, calls for special evidence to establish that the defendants' action would induce the belief, if any, that his goods are those of the claimant, at least that his business is an extension of or somehow connected with that of the claimant or that his goods have been some-how approved or authorized by the claimant. In relation to character merchandising, unless the public can be shown to be will aware of merchandising in the particular field, there will be, in general, no obvious link between the production of television programmes or films and the manufacturer of toys, clothes etc., with which character names may be profitably used. Once merchandising is well on the way, some one will have the goodwill. 14. From the above, that therefore is clear is that there do arise triable issues. The test is not, however, merely of triable issues. They must be strong triable issues as explained in A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
