Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether copyright in the book could be validly assigned by an unregistered instrument, or whether registration was compulsory; (ii) Whether the defendants had proved a valid assignment of the copyright in their favour.
Analysis: The copyright was treated as movable, intangible property and not as immovable property within Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The expression "other intangible thing" in that section was read ejusdem generis with "reversion", indicating that the provision was confined to immovable property. The scheme and headings of the Act also supported that construction. The contention that copyright was an actionable claim was rejected because the right did not fall within the statutory definition in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court further noted that the copyright statutes then in force permitted assignment by writing signed by the owner, and none required compulsory registration of an assignment deed.
Conclusion: Copyright could be assigned by an unregistered instrument, and the assignment in favour of the defendants was validly proved.
Final Conclusion: The suit for infringement failed because the plaintiff was found to have no subsisting copyright capable of enforcement.
Ratio Decidendi: Copyright is movable property that may be assigned by a written instrument without registration unless the governing statute expressly requires registration.