TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses copyright infringement claim; defendants' commercial deemed independent creation. Plaintiffs lack evidence of ownership.</h1> <h3>Star India Private Limited Versus Leo Burnett (India) Private</h3> The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding no infringement of copyright in the TV serial or artistic work, and no passing off. The defendants' ... - Issues Involved:1. Infringement of copyright in the TV serial 'KYUN KI SAAS BHI KABHI BAHU THI'.2. Infringement of artistic work.3. Passing off and misrepresentation of goodwill and reputation.Detailed Analysis:1. Infringement of Copyright in the TV Serial:The plaintiffs claimed ownership of the copyright in the TV serial 'KYUN KI SAAS BHI KABHI BAHU THI' and alleged that the defendants' commercial for Tide detergent substantially copied their serial. The court had to determine if the defendants' commercial film was a copy of the plaintiffs' TV serial. It was noted that the plaintiffs, as owners of the copyright, had exclusive rights under Section 14(d)(1) of the Copyright Act to make a copy of the film. However, the court found that the defendants had independently created their commercial without copying the plaintiffs' film. The court referred to various definitions and interpretations of the term 'copy' and concluded that the defendants' film was not a physical copy of the plaintiffs' film but an independent creation. Therefore, there was no infringement of the plaintiffs' copyright.2. Infringement of Artistic Work:The plaintiffs claimed copyright in the artistic work, including the logo and stylized font of the title 'KYUN KI SAAS BHI KABHI BAHU THI'. The court examined whether the defendants had copied this artistic work. The court found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the plaintiffs were the first owners of the copyright in the artistic work. The defendants argued that the logo and lettering style were common symbols and in the public domain. The court concluded that even if the artistic work was original, it was not copied by the defendants. Therefore, there was no infringement of the plaintiffs' artistic work.3. Passing Off and Misrepresentation of Goodwill and Reputation:The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' commercial misrepresented a connection between the plaintiffs' serial and the defendants' product, causing damage to the plaintiffs' goodwill and reputation. The court considered whether the defendants' commercial led to confusion among the public, making them believe there was an association between the plaintiffs' serial and the defendants' product. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish the essential elements of passing off, including goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage. The plaintiffs' serial was associated with the Star Plus Channel, and the defendants' commercial was not aired on the same channel. Therefore, there was no likelihood of confusion or damage to the plaintiffs' goodwill.Conclusion:The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for relief, concluding that there was no infringement of copyright or artistic work and no passing off. The court noted that the plaintiffs could be compensated by damages if they succeeded in the future, as the defendants were financially sound. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
