The challenge made by the appellant before the High Court insofar as the Notification dated 27th December, 2002 is concerned was founded on a claim of copyright in the FRIENDS application software. The said claim, ex facie, is not tenable in the light of the provisions contained in Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act and the admitted/pleaded case of the appellant in the writ petition to the effect that it was entrusted by Microsoft to develop the software for which it received due consideration from Microsoft. If that be so, on the appellant’s own pleadings in the writ petition, it would not be entitled to claim copyright in the FRIENDS application software under Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act.
COPYRIGHTS
Compilation of Customer Database — This Court (Delhi H C) cannot pass such unenforceable order, the meaning whereof is not clear. It cannot be known, neither to the Court nor to the defendant as to what the defendant is injuncted from doing. On facts as pleaded in plaint it appeared that there can be no confidentiality about such a list… the list of customers/clients of the plaintiff, carrying on business in the field of logistic and freight forwarding, can only comprise of businesses/industry requiring carriage of goods and material and none else. Names and contact addresses of such businesses are easily available in public domain. Any competitor of the plaintiff worth its salt would also know of such businesses/industry and be free to market his services to them, even if presently employing the service of the plaintiff.
COPYRIGHTS
A person who thus became first owner of Copyright for entire work, had been conferred with a statutory right for a period of 60 years over cinematograph film. This statutory right could not be taken away by a performer in cinematograph film by virtue of an agreement. Clause 9 in agreement did not curtail Copyright of Respondent. Therefore, Respondent was entitled to exploit work for entire term prescribed under Section 26 of Act, and was not restricted for a period of one year by agreement.
COPYRIGHTS
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 2(c), 14, 15 – Trademark – Copyright – Infringement – Passing off – Contempt – Punishment – Sale of counterfeit products bearing plaintiff’s registered trade mark and logo – Recovery of infringing goods from the premises of the defendants – this Court is of the opinion that a contemnor is not in a position of an accused and contempt proceedings are separate and distinct from criminal proceedings. In a criminal trial where a person is accused of an offence, there is a Public Prosecutor who prosecutes the case on behalf of the prosecution against the accused, but in contempt proceedings the Court is both the accuser as well as the Judge of the accusation,  However, as the respondent no.2/ defendant no.2 has admittedly made false statements under oath, this Court is of the view that it strikes a blow at the rule of law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake.  This Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the respondent no.2/ defendant no.2 is committed to one month’s simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.   
COPYRIGHTS
Defendants were using the plaintiff’s mark ‘NJAU’ and its product packaging to sell counterfeit products with a view to trade upon and benefit from the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff’s mark and pass off its services as that of the plaintiff’s. It is further settled law that application of the mark by the defendants to the goods exported by them constitutes use of the mark by them in India.  Consequently, the allegation that the mark ‘NJAU’ and ‘NJAU’ label used by defendant amounts to infringement of plaintiff’s copyright and passes off as plaintiff’s product is true and correct. The use of the plaintiff’s mark by the defendants is bound to cause incalculable losses, harm and injury to the plaintiff and immense public harm.
COPYRIGHTS
Defendant has infringed the sound recordings, cinematograph films and underlying literary and musical works belonging to plaintiff’s repertoire of songs – A bare perusal of the screenshot of the infringing recording (Ex. PW-2/3) and the cue sheet shows that the defendant has amongst others infringed the sound recordings, cinematograph films and underlying literary and musical works belonging to plaintiff‟s repertoire of songs „IkGoli Mere Seena Cheer Gayi‟ from the film „Born This Way‟, the song Íshq Mein Ruswa‟ from the film „Dangerous Ishq‟, the song „Ring Ring‟ from the film „Mr. Joe B Carvalho‟. As the defendant has broadcast the plaintiff‟s video songs without any license, this Court is further of the opinion that defendant has infringed the plaintiff‟s rights under Sections 14(a)(iii), 14a(iv), 14(d)(iii) and 14(e)(iii) read withSection 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
COPYRIGHTS
Held plaintiff entitled to injunction as copyright cannot be violated as it vest statutory right in plaintiff by cat and mouse game of load and deleting offending videos.  ”  unknown persons were trying to violate Copyright of Plaintiff as it had been pointed out in plaint that, different videos had been posted by Defendant No. 1 on platform of Defendant No. 2, which on request of Plaintiff were disabled. Subsequently, it had been pleaded that, ostensibly Defendant No. 1 had again reposted these videos.
COPYRIGHTS
Copyright is a statutory right. The statute i.e. the Copyright Act, though has vested a right to sue a person claiming copyright and threatening another with legal proceedings and liability for infringement thereof, has not vested such right to sue a person denying copyright, as the defendant no.1 is denying copyright claimed by plaintiff. The only right conferred under Section 55 of the Act on a person claiming copyright, is to sue for infringement thereof.
COPYRIGHTS
Section 62 of the Copyright Act merely extends the jurisdiction in which suits of the nature described in Section 62 may be filed in addition to that under Section 20 of the CPC, as also held in Sanjay Dalia and Exphar supra as also in Wipro Ltd. Vs. Oushadha Chandrika Ayurvedic India (P) Ltd. AIR 2008 Mad 165 (DB) entitling the plaintiff to, in addition to invoking jurisdiction of the Court under Section 20, also invoke the jurisdiction of another Court under Section 62 and which may not be the Court which the plaintiff could approach under Section 20 of the CPC.
COPYRIGHTS