SupremeCourt

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Monday, August 5, 2013

Delhi HC dismisses Rediff.com's Copyright Infringement plea after Trial

Posted on 1:18 AM by Unknown
How hot is this stock?
(Rediff)
Mutual Fund Meter- Is your fund the best?
(moneycontrol)
The dispute arose out of E-Eighteen.com's alleged infringement of Rediff.com's copyrighted analog image of a 'Dial' on Rediff Moneywiz. The Rediff Moneywiz Dial enabled users to reach a quick and snapshot conclusion about the prospects of a stock or a mutual fund. The quest of this žanalogue image€Ÿ led to the creation of the Dial, having the features of a Dial - like graphics, with a description titled: "How Hot is this Stock?" The Dial helped users to make a judgement about a stock or a mutual fund. The critical parameters that determined the prospects of a stock or a mutual fund were identified by the plaintiff, and these parameters were put into a formula that computed and displayed the prospects of a stock or a mutual fund on the Dial. 

The defendant company E-Eighteen.com ran the popular website Moneycontrol.com- a personal finance portal. In May 2008, the plaintiff noticed a Dial on Moneycontrol.com titled Mutual Fund Meter, allegedly highly similar to the plaintiff's Dial. The plaintiff claimed that the Dial was unique to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff had put in efforts to create and develop the formula and the principle underlying the Dial. Furthermore, the plaintiff's Dial had been registered in April 2008 with the Registrar of Copyrights. The plaintiffs filed a suit for copyright infringement in the Delhi HC which went to trial, and was ultimately dismissed by Justice Vipin Sanghi.

Rediff.com India Ltd. v. E-Eighteen.com Ltd. C.S. (OS) No.1115/2008

Contentions

The plaintiff claimed that it expended huge sums of money in developing the Dial, and in marketing and promoting the same. They had achieved a large and extensive web base of users and built up a very large and valued reputation and goodwill for its Dial. The defendants had knowledge of the plaintiff's prior use of the Dial and its functions, and the defendant started using the "Mutual Fund Meter" much later. Users were very likely to associate the two Dials with each other, especially because the class of users are same across the two products. The plaintiff  also claimed that the dial adopted by the defendant was an "adaptation" of the plaintiff's work.

The defendant claimed to be a prior-user because it was granted a license in May 2006 by Infosoft Global (a company) to use the dial for which a license fee of US$ 507.99 was also paid. It was argued that the plaintiff therefore was neither the first user of the copyright, nor entitled to any exclusive rights since it was not the owner of the copyright in terms of section 17 of the Copyright Act. The defendant claimed that Infosoft Global was a necessary party to the proceedings. Further, the colour scheme, layout and appearance of the plaintiff's Dial were distinguishable from that of the defendants therefore, there was no likelihood of confusion. In the alternative, the defendant pleaded that there is no originality in the visual image of the Dial, and that graphical representation of a dial is common property. A dial has been used in various forms for ages, and has been a common source of inspiration to people from different streams. Copyrighting a generic image cannot be permitted in public interest. Reliance was placed on the SC judgment in EBC v Modak, advancing the argument that the word "original" did not mean that the work must be the expression of original or innovative thought. Merely because a Dial may have been used in the past for scientific purposes and in mechanical devices, the literary-cum-artwork of the plaintiff does not cease to be "original". Further, the judgement of Madras HC in V.Govindan Vs. E.M. Gopalakrishna Kone was also cited, submitting that where there is a "common source", the person relying on it must prove that he actually went to the common source from where he borrowed, employing his own skill, labour and brains and that he did not merely copy.

The Plaintiff's witness (PW-1) stated that they had designed and developed the original Dial artwork, for and on behalf of the plaintiff company. Vide a deed of assignment dated 19.12.2006 they relinquished their rights with respect to the said artwork in favour of the plaintiff company. He stated that the plaintiff company had been using the original art work since December 2006. PW-1 in the cross-examination later, inter alia, clarified that he had not designed the artwork from scratch. However, the same had been developed by him, while a Mr. Rajesh Karkera of their team had prepared the final design. He listed the parameters to assess the stock of a company to be reflected on the Dial correspondingly.  

PW-1 and PW-2 admitted in cross-examination that visual representation by way of a Dial is quite common and that dials have been in existence since times immemorial. 

The Defence Witness (DW-1) stated that the defendant company was granted a license on 09.02.2006 by Infosoft Global Private Ltd. for use of the analogue Dial for providing stock market quotes, analyses and market voices, for which a license fee of US$ 507.99 was paid by the defendant in February 2006. Infosoft Global  had issued letters/ certificates dated 18.07.2008 to the defendant confirming the license granted for the use of fusion charts, and also confirming that Infosoft Global was the owner and developer of the fusion charts

Further the Counsel for defence argued that a mere registration of a copyright does not not raise any presumption in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the validity of the claim for copyright, or with regard to its alleged infringement. Reference was made to Section 48 of the Act, and the same is compared to Section 31 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. It was argued that the Registrar of Copyrights is only prima facie evidence "of the particulars entered therein" which saves that plaintiff from rendering the original certificate in Court for purposes of admitting evidence. The defence submitted that the grant of registration of a trademark is preceded by an extensive and exhaustive search, advertisement, invitation of objections and opposition and decision on the opposition to the trade mark, if any. The said scheme is not adopted in the case of registration of a copyright and, therefore, registration of a copyright does not vest any presumption of validity of a claim for copyright in the work which has been got registered under the Act. He argued that  since the Dial was a common device, there was minimal creativity involved in the creation of the plaintiff's Dial. He submitted that lack of minimal creativity, in any event, cannot be protected under the Act, as it lacked originality, in view of the EBC v Modak judgment. Further, the plaintiff had no evidence to establish violation of its copyright by leading any independent evidence of any actual confusion in the mind of any user or customer. Also, no evidence to support the plea of passing off was led by the plaintiff.

Decision of the Delhi High Court

The Court held that what the plaintiff sought was, in fact, copyright over the idea of using a Dial to display the strength of its recommendation for purchase/sale of a stock/mutual fund. There is no copyright created or protected by law in such an idea, even if it is accepted that it is the original idea of the plaintiff to use the medium of a Dial to project its recommendation for purchase/sale of stock and mutual fund.

However, the copyright in the Dial drawn created by the plaintiff-with its peculiar use of colours and notations of "Cold" and "Hot" and with the literary work "How Hot is this Stock?" was the plaintiffs original work, despite the fact that a Dial has been used for centuries to display variations of properties already mentioned above, and innumerable other properties. It was the combination of all the aforesaid aspects which was original to the plaintiff inasmuch, as, the plaintiff had created the same, which actually enjoyed protection. Similarly, the work of the defendant was also held original with the words "Mutual Fund Meter" and the representation of a semi circular Dial with needle; the use of different colours in different sectors of the semi-circle, and the use of different words.

The Court also observed that the plaintiff did not claim proprietary right  in the underlying software utilised by it-for arriving at its recommendation in respect of a stock/mutual fund, or that the said software has been used and exploited by the defendant to arrive at its own recommendation with regard to sale/purchase of mutual fund. It was only the projection of the recommendation by means of a Dial which is objected to by the plaintiff.

As observed in R.G. Anand v Delux Films, where the same idea has been developed in a different manner, it is manifest that the source being common, similarities are bound to occur. Therefore, if the plaintiff and defendant are both using the mechanism of a Dial for the same purpose i.e. to convey their respective recommendation for sale/purchase of stock and mutual fund, they are bound to be similar, as the Dial is common to both. In such cases, the Courts are required to determine whether, or not, the similarities are in the fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression adopted in the copyrighted work. The Supreme Court further held in this case that as violation of copyright amounts to an act of piracy, it must be proved with clear and cogent evidence after applying the various tests laid down by the Supreme Court.

In the present case, the plaintiff had led no independent evidence of any independent reader, spectator or viewer,who-after having seen both the works, formed an opinion or got an unmistakable impression that the work of the defendant appears to be a copy of the plaintiff work. A detailed comparison of the works of the plaintiff with that of the defendant, on the whole, led to the Court's inference  that the two works were not similar. Apart from the fact that both the plaintiff and defendant are using a Dial - which the defendant is entitled to use, there is no other similarity. The tag-line of the plaintiff "How Hot is this Stock?" was not used by the defendant at all. The defendant used the words "Mutual Fund Meter" which, by no stretch of imagination, could be said to be similar to the tag-line of the plaintiff.

It upheld the defendant's contention and observed that the registration of a copyright, unlike that of a trademark, is indeed a prima facie evidence "of the particulars entered therein". The registration of the copyright does not save the registrant from a charge of infringement of copyright of another, and does not lend any presumption of validity to the copyright of the registrant, much less the registration can be used to attack the work of another-as being an infringement of the copyright of the work which is registered.

The Court rejected the plaintiff's submission that the defendants had 'adapted' the plaintiff's work, considering the meaning of 'adaptation' under s. 2(a). The defendants definitely did not abridge, alter or re-arrange the plaintiff's work.

Thus, the plaintiff's failed to establish infringement or deceptive similarity between the two works. The suit was dismissed with costs of Rs 50,000.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in Copyright, trial | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • IPAB on Payyannur Ring
    [*S lightly long post] Background: The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (“ IPAB ”), in its recent order in SubhashJewellery v. Payyan...
  • Guest Post: Intermediary liability in defamation cases - Parle, Mouthshut & Visakha cases to clarify the law
    Chaitanya Ramachandran, who has blogged for us previously over here and here , has sent us this excellent guest post analyzing the extent of...
  • Delhi HC rejects the "Hot News" Doctrine: A Summary
    The applicability of the Hot News doctrine was rejected recently in a landmark ruling delivered by Justice Bhat of the Delhi HC. This post i...
  • IP Research Assistant position at IIT, Madras
    Feroz Ali Khader, MHRD IP Chair at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras, is looking for research assistants to work on various is...
  • Satyajit Ray's sketches and copyright controversies
    A copyright row appears to have started between the Satyajit Ray Society and the Delhi Art Gallery, that is organising a countrywide exhibit...
  • Dorling Kindersley v. Sanguine Technical Publishers
    A recent Delhi High Court order passed on 21 January, 2013  with respect to copyright licensing has come to our notice. An analysis of the j...
  • Call for Papers: IIT Bombay and MHRD jointly announce the 2nd International Conference on Management of Intellectual Property and Strategy
    The readers may be interested to know that the Shailesh J. Mehta School of Management of IIT Bombay is geared up to host, in collaboration w...
  • SpicyIP Tidbit: ALCS August Distribution
    In the UK, the Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society is an organization run and owned by writers that collects money due to its mem...
  • Aaron Swartz, RIP
    See Cory Doctorow's eulogy here Some of us in India may not have heard of Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old activist who was heavily involved ...
  • Thalappakatti biryani trademark row
    The southern district of Dindigal in Tamil Nadu occupies a special place in the hearts of biryani lovers. In the late 1950s, one Nagasamy N...

Categories

  • 126 (1)
  • 3(d) (4)
  • 3(f) (1)
  • 3(i) (1)
  • 3(k) (2)
  • Academic Writing (1)
  • access (10)
  • access to food (1)
  • access to health (3)
  • AIA (1)
  • AIDS/HIV (3)
  • Antitrust (2)
  • Bajaj v LML (1)
  • Basmati Row (2)
  • Biological Diversity (5)
  • Biologics (2)
  • biopiracy (4)
  • biotech (7)
  • Bollywood (25)
  • Broadcasters Rights (5)
  • Budget (1)
  • business method patent (2)
  • Call for papers (2)
  • Cipla (2)
  • Comparative Advertising (4)
  • Competition law (8)
  • Compulsory Licensing (27)
  • condonation of delay (1)
  • Conference (4)
  • Constitution (12)
  • Contracts (1)
  • Controller's decisions (8)
  • Copyright (112)
  • Copyright Amendment Bill 2010 (23)
  • copyright board (4)
  • Copyright Exceptions (6)
  • copyright office (1)
  • Copyright Rules (2013) (5)
  • Copyright Societies (9)
  • Counterfeiting (1)
  • creativity (1)
  • Cross Retaliation (1)
  • csir (4)
  • d (1)
  • D.U. Photocopy Case (16)
  • Darjeeling Tea (3)
  • Data Exclusivity (2)
  • Database (1)
  • DCGI (2)
  • decompilation (2)
  • defamation (9)
  • Designs (3)
  • Designs Act (3)
  • Differential Pricing (2)
  • Dilution (1)
  • Disabilities (3)
  • Disability (2)
  • DMCA (2)
  • Doha Declaration (1)
  • Domain Names (2)
  • Draft Policy of the Indian Government (2)
  • DRM (1)
  • Drug Regulation (7)
  • education (12)
  • Enercon (1)
  • Enforcement (1)
  • EU (2)
  • ex parte (2)
  • exhaustion (3)
  • Exhaustion of Rights (2)
  • Fair Dealing (8)
  • Fair Use (11)
  • Federal Circuit (1)
  • Fees (3)
  • FICCI (7)
  • FRAND (2)
  • free trade agreement (3)
  • FTA (3)
  • G.I. Registry (4)
  • gene sequences (3)
  • Generic medicine (4)
  • Geographical Indication (14)
  • Gilead (1)
  • Glenmark (5)
  • Gopika (34)
  • Guest post (11)
  • guidelines (1)
  • GWU-CII (1)
  • Herceptin (1)
  • hot news (3)
  • ICANN (1)
  • incremental innovation (1)
  • independence (1)
  • india (5)
  • Indian Government (1)
  • Indian patent litigation (27)
  • Indian Pharma (35)
  • Injunction (10)
  • Innovation (7)
  • INTA (1)
  • Intermediaries (10)
  • internet (11)
  • Internet Access Providers (IAPs) (5)
  • Internet Censorship (7)
  • IP scholarship (3)
  • IP aware (4)
  • IP Course (3)
  • IP Education (1)
  • IP Policy (11)
  • IP update (4)
  • ip writing competition (1)
  • IPAB (34)
  • ipchair (1)
  • IPO (1)
  • IPRS (5)
  • IT Act (1)
  • Journal (2)
  • judicial independence (3)
  • Jurisdiction (1)
  • Kruttika (4)
  • Legal Education (3)
  • Legal Research Tools (1)
  • Legal Scholarship (2)
  • library (2)
  • Licensing (7)
  • Madhulika (20)
  • mathematical methods (1)
  • Media law (3)
  • medical method (1)
  • Merck (4)
  • mhrd ip chair (1)
  • Microsoft (3)
  • Middle Path (1)
  • Moral Rights (2)
  • Movies (18)
  • musical work (2)
  • nanotechnology (1)
  • Natco (3)
  • natco defamation suit (5)
  • natco vs bayer (4)
  • need for transparency (1)
  • Novartis (8)
  • Novartis patent case in India (11)
  • NPEs (2)
  • nujs (1)
  • NUJS Conference (2)
  • Obituary (1)
  • obviousness (7)
  • Off-Topic (2)
  • online course (4)
  • Open Access (6)
  • Open Source (2)
  • Opposition (3)
  • Parallel Imports (4)
  • Parliament (1)
  • passing off (5)
  • Patent (52)
  • Patent act (10)
  • patent agent (5)
  • patent agent exam (9)
  • patent agent exam qualifications (3)
  • patent infringement (5)
  • Patent Licensing (2)
  • Patent litigation (2)
  • Patent Office (19)
  • patent pool (3)
  • Patent Prosecution (7)
  • Patent rules (2)
  • Patent Strategies (8)
  • Patents (9)
  • pegasus (1)
  • Personality Rights (1)
  • Pfizer (1)
  • Pharma (18)
  • Piracy (5)
  • plagiarism (3)
  • Plant Variety Protection (2)
  • post grant (1)
  • Prashant (2)
  • Preventive Detention (1)
  • Price Control (6)
  • prior publication (1)
  • Privacy (3)
  • Prizes (1)
  • public health (3)
  • Public Interest (4)
  • Publicity Rights (4)
  • Publishing (3)
  • radio (2)
  • Rajiv (18)
  • Rectification Petition (2)
  • Rejection (1)
  • research (3)
  • reverse engineering (2)
  • revocation (4)
  • rip (1)
  • Roche (2)
  • Roche vs Cipla (1)
  • Royalty (2)
  • RTI (2)
  • Scholarship (4)
  • section 16 (1)
  • Section 3(d) (7)
  • section 8 (6)
  • shamnad (11)
  • Shan Kohli (4)
  • Shouvik Kumar Guha (30)
  • Smartphones/Tablets (2)
  • Social Innovation (1)
  • Software (10)
  • software enforcement (3)
  • software patent (3)
  • Special 301 Report (1)
  • Spicy Tidbits (6)
  • spicyip (1)
  • SpicyIP Accolades (1)
  • SpicyIP Announcements (9)
  • SpicyIP Case (1)
  • SpicyIP Cases (3)
  • spicyip commiseration (1)
  • SpicyIP Events (11)
  • SpicyIP Fellowship (5)
  • SpicyIP Guest Series (22)
  • SpicyIP Interview (2)
  • SpicyIP Jobs (4)
  • SpicyIP Jobs/General (2)
  • SpicyIP Review (1)
  • SpicyIP Tidbits (11)
  • SpicyIP Weekly Review (27)
  • Statutory Licensing (1)
  • STI Policy 2013 (4)
  • Sugen (3)
  • Supreme Court of India (5)
  • Swaraj (19)
  • Tarnishment (1)
  • Technology (6)
  • Technology Transfer (5)
  • TKDL (5)
  • TPP (1)
  • trade (4)
  • Trade Secret Protection (1)
  • Trademark (59)
  • Trademark dilution (1)
  • Trademark Registry (9)
  • Traditional Knowledge (7)
  • Transparency (5)
  • treaty (1)
  • trial (1)
  • tribunals (2)
  • TRIPS (11)
  • UK (3)
  • unfair competition (5)
  • UNFCCC (1)
  • Universities Research and Innovation Bill (2)
  • US (1)
  • US Patent Reform (1)
  • US Supreme Court (3)
  • viva (3)
  • WIPO (5)
  • Working a Patent (2)
  • Workshop (4)
  • writ (1)
  • WTO (1)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (364)
    • ►  September (13)
    • ▼  August (41)
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: ALCS August Distribution
      • PIP Essay Competition Results Announced: Meet the ...
      • Now Showing: Satyagraha: Bom HC denies an Injuncti...
      • Patenting food: Plumpy’ Nut and more?
      • Bollywood flick Satyagraha faces dispute over its ...
      • Leading IP Academics Fired: Protest Petition Again...
      • Two MHRD IP Chair Professors axed; Reasons unknown
      • FICCI and The George Washington University, Washin...
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: IPA continues communication with P...
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: GI for Pedana Kalamkari Art Form
      • Colgate v Pepsodent: Comparative Advertising
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: Justice KN Basha to be new IPAB ch...
      • IPRS complies with new copyright law & decides to ...
      • Re-imposing curbs on royalty payments to foreigners
      • Debating the CIS Draft Bill on Privacy: Should thi...
      • The BDR compulsory licensing application and the B...
      • Satyajit Ray's sketches and copyright controversies
      • Rihanna's victory in the Topshop T-shirt case
      • When cancer drugs stop being “necessities”: A case...
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: Singers from the South in support ...
      • Loss of an IP Leader: RIP Prof Daruwalla
      • Part II: IPAB revokes Allergan's patent on eye dru...
      • Part I: IPAB revokes Allergan's patent on eye drug...
      • Feedback on draft guidelines for Computer Related ...
      • A naïve report from Parliament on FDI in the Pharm...
      • INTAvening in the Supreme Court: Parallel Imports ...
      • Surprising news! - Roche decides to not ‘pursue’ H...
      • Independent Intellectual Property: Gunning For (or...
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: Special Services announced by WIP...
      • GI News: Kaipad Rice, Nagpur Oranges, Dharmavaram ...
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: Patent Office confirms status of G...
      • The Sholay litigation saga
      • SpicyIP Tidbit: Has Genentech’s main Herceptin pat...
      • Bollywood flick 'I love NY' accused of plagiarisin...
      • The Herceptin patent fiasco at the Indian Patent O...
      • IPO vs IPAB: IT Prowess and Transparency?
      • Ghost Post: Samsung v. Apple Presidential Enforcem...
      • Delhi HC dismisses Rediff.com's Copyright Infringe...
      • UNICEF Supply Annual Report 2012 : India is the La...
      • Raj Anand Moot Court Competition 2013
      • Breaking News: GSK patents challenged: IPAB revoke...
    • ►  July (36)
    • ►  June (36)
    • ►  May (32)
    • ►  April (51)
    • ►  March (66)
    • ►  February (40)
    • ►  January (49)
  • ►  2012 (131)
    • ►  December (29)
    • ►  November (42)
    • ►  October (50)
    • ►  September (10)
Powered by Blogger.