- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
T. Pandiyan Arivali v. Kamal Hassan
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant filed a suit claiming copyright in the title of a Tamil book “Magalir Mattum,” which he had registered with the Registrar of Copyrights. The book was yet to be published. The appellant alleged that the respondent had produced a film using the same title, which he claimed was an infringement of his copyright. The appellant sought a permanent injunction and filed a petition for a temporary injunction pending the suit, which was dismissed by the trial court. The respondent appeared but had not filed a written statement, contesting the injunction on the basis that the appellant had not published the book and thus could not claim copyright in the title.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether copyright subsists in the title of a literary work, particularly when the work is unpublished.
- Whether the use of the title of an unpublished work by another party constitutes copyright infringement.
- The legal effect of registration of copyright in an unpublished work’s title.
- Whether the trial court’s observation that there can be no copyright in an unpublished work is legally correct.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The appellant claimed copyright in the book title “Magalir Mattum” based on registration with the Registrar of Copyrights.
- The respondent’s use of the same title for a film amounted to infringement.
- The trial court’s observation that there can be no copyright in an unpublished work was incorrect.
Respondent's Arguments
- The respondent contended that since the book was unpublished, the appellant could not claim copyright in the title.
- The respondent argued that copyright protection does not extend to the title of a work.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court acknowledged the established legal principle under Sections 13 and 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957, that copyright protection generally does not extend to the title of a literary or musical work, as the title is not considered part of the author's composition. The court recognized that ordinarily, titles can be freely adopted by others without infringement. However, the court noted an exception where the title has acquired distinctiveness to the extent that its use by another would mislead the public into believing it is the same work, constituting infringement. The court also explained that copyright infringement claims involving unpublished works are generally difficult to conceive unless the unpublished work has been copied or misappropriated by another. In this case, the court found no material facts or evidence to show that the respondent had copied or adopted the appellant’s unpublished work or that the title had acquired such distinctiveness. The court further clarified that the trial court’s sweeping observation that no copyright can exist in an unpublished work was incorrect, referencing Section 54 of the Copyright Act which includes provisions about ownership of copyright even in unpublished works and exclusive licensees. Ultimately, the court did not find any infringement of the appellant’s copyright in the title.
Holding and Implications
The appeal was dismissed.
The court’s decision directly affects the parties by upholding the dismissal of the temporary injunction petition and rejecting the claim of copyright infringement in the unpublished book title. The judgment clarifies that while copyright does not ordinarily extend to titles, protection may arise if the title has acquired a distinctive character causing public confusion. However, no new precedent was established beyond reaffirming existing legal principles and correcting the trial court’s erroneous observation regarding copyright in unpublished works.
Mishra, J.
Heard. Appellant herein has filed a suit claiming copyright in the title of a book “Magalir Mattum” in Tamil which he has got registered with the Registrar of Copyrights. According to him, the book is yet to be published. He has acquired the copyright for the title of the work by virtue of the said registration. He has found, however, that the respondent herein has come forward with an advertisement that he has proceeded to produce a film (movie) in the name of “Magalir Mattum”. This, according to the plaintiff-appellant is an infringement of his copyright and that has given rise to an action in Court for a permanent injunction. He has filed a petition for temporary injunction pending the suit. The said petition has been dismissed (Reported in 1994-2-L.W. 535). He has come forward with this appeal.
2. The respondent is yet to file his written statement. He has entered appearance in the suit and contested the claim of the plaintiff-appellant for injunction of the ground that the appellant has not yet published the book and thus, the book is neither known to the respondent; nor the contents thereof. According to him, the appellant cannot claim any copyright in the title of the book, whether published or not published.
3. The trial Court has rejected the prayer for temporary injunction.
4. It is generally acknowledged by the Court in India that the definitions in Sections 13 and 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957, do not go beyond the literary work or musical work and the title ordinarily of any such work is not a part of composition or work of the author or the composer. His workmanship is confined to the work and not to the title. It is indeed the law that there is no property in the name which is the term of description used to identify the work and any other person can, with impunity, adopt it. That appears to be the defence of the respondent and it is rot easy to find any exception to it. There can still, however, be an occasion for any author or composer to complain to the Court that his copyright has been infringed, if he is able to show that the title of his work is being used by another person to induce the public to believe that a thing which he has to apply is applied, it is not different from the work to which the title has been given by the author or composer. In that case, however, it will be necessary for the author and the composer to bring such material facts and evidence in support thereof that the title of the work has acquired such a character in the mind of the public that they cannot easily disassociate the title from the work and accept the same for any other work. In other words, it should be found for holding that there is an infringement of copyright merely by the adoptation of the title of a work of art, music or drama, that it has been used by another for the purpose of inducing the public to believe that it is the same work which is being performed or delivered to them. There can also be no difficulty in acknowledging that ordinarily unless a work is published, its violation is not conceivable by someone who comes with his publication before the other work is published. That, however, cannot mean that someone who has got the opportunity to sneak into the work of art, drama or music can take the same to benefit himself by using it for performance and publication. In other words, if it is shown by the complainant that his work which has not been published has been copied and/or adopted by another person and he is able to establish that it is his work which has been so published by another who has not credited the work, there can be a case in his favour that his copyright has been infringed. We have not found in this case any such exception to hold that the registration of the copyright in the work registered in the name mentioned above by the appellant has been infringed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, has pointed out that the trial Court has in this interlocutory application made a sweeping observation that there could be no copyright in an unpublished work. Learned counsel for the respondent-caveator has not been able to show as to how in a work of art, drama or music, the author or composer shall have no copyright if it is not published. Before any other person has come out with the publication of the same work, no one except the author and the composer shall have the copyright in the work, except for the purpose of the remedies under Section 54 of the Copyright Act, in which case the expression “owner of copyright” shall include (a) an exclusive licensee; and (b) in the case of an anonymous or pseudonymous literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, the publisher of the work, until the identity of the author or, in the case of an anonymous work of joint authorship, or a work of joint authorship published under names all of which are pseudonymous, the identify of any of the authors, is disclosed publicly by the author and the publisher or is otherwise established to the satisfaction of the Copyright Board by that author or his legal representatives. The observations of the learned single judge in this behalf in the impugned judgment can not be accepted as correct exposition of law in this behalf. With the observations as above, this appeal is dismissed.
KA/RR/VCS
Alert