VICCO LABORATORIES AND ANR. versus ART COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 451 · Decided: 13-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

VICCO LABO RA TORIES AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
ART COMMERCIA ADVERTISING PVT.LTD. AND ORS. 
AUGUST 13, 2001 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Copyrights Act, 1957-Section 17-Production of television serial for 
a fu:ed sum for a manufacturing company-Claim of ownership of copyrights 
in the serial and its title by the manufacturing company-Justification of-
Hold, on facts and evidence on record, claim not justified. 
C 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-Appreciation of evidence by 
Courts below-No important question involved-Not to be interfered with. 
Petitioners, who are manufactures of ayurvedic pharmaceutical 
products, employed respondents I to 4 as their advertising agents for the D 
purpose of producing a television serial for Doordarshan. The respondents 
prepared a serial titled 'Yeh Jo Hai Zindagi' for the petitioners for a fixed 
sum of money. The serial was used by the petitioners to advertise their 
products exclusively •. The petitioners claimed themselves to be the real 
producers and owners of the copyright in the serial and the exclusive right E 
to use its title. The serial gained popularity and it was decided to increase 
the number of episodes from 27 ·to 52. The respondents proposed to the 
petitioners that some other products should be tied up with the serial for 
sponsorship as they were incurring loss of Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 75,000 per 
episode. The petitioners Informed the respondents that It was not possible to 
pay the increased costs of production for the episodes; that the serial Is F 
associated with the petitioners; and that, if they wanted to involve another 
sponsor, they could produce a new serial under a different name. 
Apprehending that the respondents intended to produce further episodes 
under the same title with new sponsors, the petitioners filed a suit before 
trial court for a declaration that the title and format of the serial belonged G 
to the petitioners and the respondents have no right thereto and for a 
permanent injunction restraining the respondents from making use of the 
title or episodes belonging to the petitioners or any episodes hereafter made. 
The trial court, after examining the facts and evidence, held that the 
451 
H 
452 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A petitioners ·have not been able to prove that the serial was produced by the 
respondents as agents in the course of their employment; that the petitioners 
were not able to prove that the entire serial rights including the exclusive 
right to use the title thereof belonged to the petitioners; that the respondents 
are the owners of the copyright of the serial under Section 17 of the 
Copyright Act, 1957. On appeal by the petitioners, the High Court, after re-
B examination of the matter, upheld the finding recorded by the trial court. 
In appeal to this Court, the petitioners contended that the expenses 
incurred in the production of the serial by the respondents were fully borne 
by the petitioners; and that they are the owners of the copyrights of the serial 
C and title under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957. 
Dismissing the S.L.P., the Court 
HELD : I.I. From the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the 
High Court, it clearly indicates that the respondents were not the agents of 
D the petitioners for the purpose of producing the serial The aggregate amount 
paid to the respondents is not the amount for cost of production but the fixed 
price for sponsoring the serial in order to link up their advertisement with 
the serial and avail substantial benefit of concessional rate under the scheme 
envisaged by Doordarshan. The respondents were not liable to render accounts 
to the petitioners who paid them a fixed sum for sponsoring the programme. 
E If the expenses were less, the petitioners did not ask for a refund and the 
profit or loss was entirely of the respondents. The bills have been raised only 
to accommodate the petitioners. It is probable that the respondents had 
obliged the petitioners by issuing these bills because the bills cannot be read 
in isolation but with reference to surrounding circumstances. The view 
F taken by the Courts below in this regard appears to be correct 
(464-H; 465-A, B, DJ 
1.2. On appreciation of evidence, the Courts below have come to the 
conclusion that the respondents did not make the serial for valuable 
consideration at the instance of the petitioners and in view of the findings 
G of fact, the claim of copyright or ownership 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.