LexKRISHIKA LULLA & ORS. versus SHYAM VITHALRAO DEVKATIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 12 S.C.R. 1056 KRISHIKA LULLA & ORS. v. SHYAM VITHALRAO DEVKATIA&ANR. (Criminal Appeal No .. 258 of 2013) OCTOBER 15, 2015 [MADAN B. LOKUR AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482- Complaint c u/s. 63 of Copyright Act rlw. ss.406 and 420 of /PC -Alleging infringement of copyright of the title of the synopsis of a story - Process issued - Application u!s. 482 by the accused seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, dismissed - On appeal, held: Under s. 13, Copyright subsists in an original D literary work - The title does not qualify for being described as 'work' - The combination of two words of the title in question 'Desi Boys' also cannot be said to have anything original in it - These words do not qualify for being described as 'literary work' -· Hence, no copyright can subsist in it - TR.erefore, E criminal complaint for infringement of copyright is not tenable - Criminal proceedings are quashed - Copyright Act, 1957 - ss. 13 and 63 - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 406 and 420. Words and Phrases - 'Literary' - Meaning of, in the F contextofCopyrightAct, 1957. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Copyright is a statutory right recognized and protected by The Copyright Act, 1957. On a plain G reading of Section 13 of the Act, copyright subsists in inter-alia an origipal literary work. In the first place a title does not qualify for being described as "work". It is incomplete in itself and refers to the work that follows. Secondly, the combination of the two words "Desi" and H 1056 • KRISHIKALULLA v. SHYAMVITHALRAO DEVKATTA 1057 "Boys" cannot be said to have anything original in it. A They are extremely common place words in India. It is obvious, therefore, that the title "Desi Boys", assuming it to be a work, has nothing original in it in the sense that its origin cannot be attributed to respondent No.1. In fact these words do not even qualify for being described as 8 'literary work'. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the meaning of the word 'literary' as "concerning the writing, study, or content of literature, especially of the kind valued for quality of form". The mere use of common c words, such as those used in the present case, cannot qualify for being described as 'literary'. In the present · case, the title of a mere synopsis of a story is said to have been used for the title of a film. The title in question cannot therefore be considered to be a 'literary work' and, D hence, no copyright can be said to subsist in it, vide Section 13; nor can a criminal complaint for infringement be said to be tenable on such basis. [Para 11] [1063-C- G] Francis Day & Hunter Ltd. v. Twentieth Century E Fox Corporation Ltd. and Ors. AIR 1940 Privy Council 55 - relied on. E.M. ForsterandAnr. v.A.N. ParasuramAIR 1964 Madras 331; Kanungo Media (P) Ltd. v RGV Film F Factory & Ors. (2007) ILR 1 Delhi 1122; R. Radha Krishnan v. Mr. A.R. Murugadoss & Ors. 2013-5- L.W. 429-approved. Hogg v. Maxwell (1866-67) L.R.2 Ch. App. 307; a Macmillan v. Suresh Chander Deb ILR 17 Cat 951; Longman v. Winchester (1809)16 \/es 269; Dicks v. Yates (1881) 18 Ch D 79 - referred to. 2. No copyright subsists in the title of a literary work H and a plaintiff or a complainant is not entitled to relief on 1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 12 S.C.R. A such basis except in an action for passing off or in respect of a registered trademark comprising such titles. This does not mean that in no case can a title be a proper subject of protection against being copied. [Para 19] (1068-F-G] B 3. !n the present case, there is no copyright in the title "Desi Boys" and thus no question of its infringement arises. The prosecution based on allegations of infringement of copyright in such a title is untenable. C [Para 20] (1068-H, 1069-A] Case Law Reference (1866-67) L.R.2 Ch. App. 307 referred to. Para 12 D AIR 1940 Privy Council 55 relied on. Para 13 AIR 1964 Madras 331 approved. Para 15 ILR 17 Cat 951 referred to. Para 15 E (1809)16 Ves 269 referred to. Para 15 (1881) 18 Ch D 79 referred to. Para 15 (2007) ILR 1 Delhi 1122 approved. Para 16 F 2013-5-L.W. 429 approved. Para 17 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 258 of 2013. G From the Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2012 of the Single Judge of High Court of Bombay in Criminal Application No.1295of2011. With Crl. A. No. 259 of 2013. H KRISHIKALULLA v. SH
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.