- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Lamba Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. Lamba Brothers
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff claims to be the owner of copyright in a catalogue relating to machinery (Power Presses) manufactured by him. The plaintiff and defendants, who are brothers, previously conducted business together as partners under the name ‘ELBEE’. The partnership was dissolved effective 1.4.1985, after which both parties carried on business independently. The dispute concerns alleged copyright infringement by the defendants through a catalogue similar to that of the plaintiff. The catalogue in question contains written descriptive words, tables, and photographs related to the plaintiff’s products. The plaintiff asserts copyright ownership over this catalogue, which was created by an employee, Mr. S.K. Bassi. The suit seeks to establish copyright protection and infringement in respect of this catalogue.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the plaintiff’s catalogue/brochure is protected by copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957.
- Whether the absence of any formal copyright notice or claim in the catalogue affects the validity of the plaintiff’s copyright claim.
- Whether compliance with statutory formalities under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, and international conventions (Universal Copyright Convention, 1971) is necessary for copyright protection in this case.
- Whether the plaintiff’s reliance on precedents and international conventions supports a claim of copyright despite lack of formal notice.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The catalogue is a copyrightable work comprising written expression, tables, and photographs, all protected under the Copyright Act, 1957.
- According to the Universal Copyright Convention revised at Paris in 1971 (Article III), copyright protection should be granted even if formal copyright claims or notices are absent in the catalogue.
- The mention of the plaintiff’s company name and address in the catalogue satisfies the requirements under Section 18(14) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867.
- Mr. S.K. Bassi, the creator of the catalogue and an employee of the plaintiff, is the author, and his certificate disclaiming rights is submitted to support the suit.
- Precedents such as the judgment reported at 72 R.P.C. 89 and 41 R.P.C. 160 support copyright claims in catalogues under certain conditions.
Court's Observations on Arguments
- The catalogue does not contain any copyright notice such as the symbol (C), the name of the author, or any reasonable notice claiming copyright.
- The mention of the plaintiff’s name alone without the symbol (C) or explicit copyright claim is insufficient under statutory requirements.
- The certificate from Mr. Bassi appears to be an afterthought and is prima facie aimed only at sustaining the suit.
- The precedent at 72 R.P.C. 89 is distinguishable because in that case a copyright claim was clearly made in the catalogue, unlike the present case.
- The judgment at 41 R.P.C. 160 involved recorded evidence establishing copyright, which is absent here.
- The argument based on the Berne Convention that no formalities are required for claiming copyright is rejected because statutory compliance and claim are necessary under domestic law.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| 72 R.P.C. 89 | Support for copyright claim in catalogue where claim is expressly made in the catalogue. | Distinguished and held inapplicable as the present catalogue does not contain any copyright claim. |
| 41 R.P.C. 160 | Establishment of copyright in catalogue after recording evidence. | Not applicable as no evidence establishing copyright was recorded in the present suit. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the nature of the catalogue as a composite copyrightable work containing written words, tables, and photographs. However, it emphasized that copyright protection under the Copyright Act, 1957, requires compliance with statutory formalities, including a clear claim of copyright. The court referred to Section 18(14) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, which mandates the entry of particulars of copyright ownership in a catalogue of books. The absence of any copyright symbol (C) or explicit notice in the catalogue was fatal to the plaintiff’s claim.
The court also considered the Universal Copyright Convention's Article III, which requires reasonable notice of copyright claim for protection, and found that the catalogue did not meet these criteria. The plaintiff’s reliance on the mention of the company’s name was insufficient. The certificate from the purported author was viewed skeptically as an afterthought. The court distinguished prior case law relied upon by the plaintiff, noting the critical factual differences.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s contention that the Berne Convention obviated the need for formalities, holding that domestic statutory compliance and claims are essential for enforcement of copyright. Consequently, the court found no valid copyright claim in the catalogue and declined to entertain the suit.
Holding and Implications
The suit for infringement of copyright in the catalogue/brochure is dismissed.
The decision directly affects the parties by denying the plaintiff’s claim of copyright protection in the catalogue due to non-compliance with statutory requirements and absence of any copyright notice. No new precedent was established, and the ruling reinforces the necessity of formal copyright claims and statutory compliance under Indian law for enforcement of copyright in printed matter.
Mahinder Narain, J. (Oral)— In this case, the plaintiff claims to be owner of copyright in a catalogue.
2. The catalogue relates to machinery (Power Presses) manufactured by the Plaintiff, copyright wherein is alleged to have been infringed by another catalogue of the defendants.
3. The plaintiff and defendants were carrying on business together at one time. They were functioning as partners and are real brothers. They were carrying on business in the name of ‘ELBEE’, ‘L’ standing for Lamba and ‘B’ for Brothers. These two alphabets LB made up in a word form of ‘ELBEE’.
4. On dissolution of partnership w.e.f 1.4.1985 by a Deed of Dissolution dated 20.10.1985, the two brothers appear to have carried on business independently.
5. The plaintiff says that the two brothers are litigating about the trade mark ‘ELBEE’ in another proceeding, with which we are not concerned here.
6. This suit is relatable to a “catalogue”, actually it is no more than a Coloured. Brochure, which is claimed to have been made by one Mr. S.K Bassi which catalogue/brochure relates to the power presses which are manufactured and marketed by the plaintiff.
7. In this catalogue, there are written descriptive words, tables and photographs.
8. Written words or “expression” created by stringing words together is copyrigh-table subject matter; as “tables” are prepared by expenditure of skill and labour such tables are also protected by copyright; photographs are copyrightable too. The catalogue/brochure is, therefore, a combination of different types of copyrightable subject matter, which is afforded protection under the Copyright Act, 1957. The question in this case is: Does the Catalogue/Brochure of the plaintiff protected by the copyright Act, 1957.
9. There is no reservation claim of copyright in the Catalogue/Brochure of the plaintiff in any of the recognised method, i.e, by a mark (C); or the expression “Copyright Reserved” or Copyright: Lamba Brothers (P) Ltd; there is no such reservation the text in the brochure, the tables in the brochure or the photographs in the brochure.
10. I have brought to the counsel's attention to the provisions of Press Registration Act Section 18(14) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, clearly states that particulars of all books printed in India have to be filled-in the “Catalogue of books”. Which has to contain particulars mentioned in Section 18, and under sub-section(14) the name and address of the proprietor of the copyright, or of any portion of such copyright has to be entered. As stated above, the particulars about the name of the author, or claims as to the whole or part of the copyrightable matter are not printed in the Catelogue/Brochure in suit
11. Counsel for the plaintiff says that according to the Universal Copyright Convention revised at Paris in 1971, Article III, protection is to be given to the catalogue subject matter of this suit. It is contended that it is of no consequence that claim to copyright is not made in or upon the Catalogue in suit. Article III of that Convention reads as under:—
“Any Contracting State which, under its domestic law, requires as a condition of copyright, compliance with formalities such as deposit, registration, notice, notarial certificates, payment of fees or manufacture of publication in that Contracting State, shall regard these requirments as satisfied with respect to all works protected in accordance with this Convention and first published outside its territory and the author of which is not one of its nationals, if from the time of the first publication all the copies of the work published with the authority of the author or other copyright proprietor bear the symbol (C) accompanied by the name of the copyright proprietor and the year of first publication placed in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of claim of copyright”
12. From the above, it is clear that the protection would be given reasonable notice of the following are to be found in the matter with regard to which copyright is claimed:—
(1) name of the author.
(2) year of publication,
(3) symbol (C), accompanied by name of the author,
(4) or there should be any other reasonable notice for claim of copyright.
13. Counsel points out that in the catalogue which is sought to be protected by this suit, there is mention that the machines are made by Lamba Brothers Pvt. Ltd., 6/10, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, New Delhi-110015, and that this should be sufficient compliance with subsection (14) of Section 18 of Press and Registration of Books Act.
14. I do not think that this could be so, particularly in view of the fact that the name of the plaintiff is not accompanied by the symbol (C). No reasonable notice that the plaintiffs claim any copyright is visible in the catalogue.
15. It has been asserted by the plaintiff that the creator/author of the catalogue was one Mr. S.K Bassi, who was an employee of the plaintiff firm. This assertion that Mr. S.K Bassi is the author and that he claims the copyright in the Catalogue/Brochure is nowhere stated in the Catalogue/Brochure. The plaintiff has also filed a certificate from this Mr. Bassi saying that he is one who created the catalogue and that he is also disclaiming any rights and interests in the catalogue. This certificate seems to be an after thought, and appears prima facie to be only for the purpose of sustaining this suit.
16. Counsel also refers to judgment reported as 72 R.P.C 89. In that case, the claim of copyright was made in the catgolugue. That claim being supported by a claim to copyright in the catalogue itself, as set out at page 95, the said decision of Court of Appeal, (comprising the Master of the Rolls Sir Raymond Evershed, Jenkins and Hodson, Lord Justices) is distinguishable, and has no application to the facts of the present case, and of no assistance to (he counsel.
17. Another judgment relied upon by the plaintiff is Single Judge judgement reported as 41 R.P.C 160. This case relates to a matter in which evidence had been recorded, and copyright in the catalogue established.
18. I think that in view of the Copyright Act and in view of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 and in view of Article III of Copyright Convention revised at Paris in 1971, in my view it is essential that for copyright to exist, there must be compliance with the requirements of the statute and claim to copyright made upon the copyrightable matter before any action in copyright can be sustained, and perfected by statutory, remedies.
19. In this case, there is no claim for copyright in the brochure. This brochure is a single sheet of paper, having a number of folds. In my view, no copyright can be claimed on the basis of mere fact that there is some printed matter which has got words and sentences, photographes and tables but has no claim of the copyright.
20. The submissions of the counsel regarding Berne Convention that there are no formalities required for claim to copyright is not acceptable, as when no claim has been recorded, and no claim of reservation of copyright in printed matter would amount to a disclaimer of copyright.
21. In this view of the matter, I decline to entertain this suit for infringement of copyright in the “brochure” for ‘ELBEE’ machines of the plaintiff.
21. Suit dismissed.
Alert