TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (5) TMI 943
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laims to be the owner of the copyrights in the books and plaintiff No. 2 Wiley India Pvt. Ltd is the exclusive licensee of the plaintiff No. 1 having its office at Delhi. b) The plaintiff No. 3 Cengage Learning Inc., a corporation incorporated under the laws of State of Delaware in US is the owner of the copyrights in the books and the plaintiff No. 4 Cengage Learning India Pvt. Ltd is an affiliate and exclusive licencee of the plaintiff No. 3 which publishes the books of the plaintiff No. 3 in India. c) The plaintiff No. 5 Pearson Education Inc. is a corporation incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware in USA. d) The plaintiff No. 6 Dorling Kindersley India Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated in India under the Companies Act having its registered office at New Delhi. 3. The plaintiffs (collectively) claim to be pioneers in their respective fields of publishing academic, scientific and other educational books which are circulated world wide. The plaintiffs claim to have a repertoire of the books which are published by them and are available globally at the prices settled by the plaintiffs. 4. It is averred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only in India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. Circulation of this edition of this edition outside of these territories is unauthorized. Additionally each book bears a yellow band at the top of the cover with the phrase "Low Price Edition" prominently appearing on the front and back covers with the abbreviation "LPE" on the spine of each book. 9. The plaintiffs contend that any attempt by anyone to sell, distribute or circulate the books outside the territories prescribed by the owners of the copyright shall cause infringement of the copyright. The said claim is averred in the plaint by stating that India is signatory to the Universal Copyright Convention and the Berne Convention and the rights of a copyright holder shall extend to the member countries by virtue of Section 40 of the Copyright Act. 10. It is further averred in the plaint that the said books are reprint editions which are first published in US and thereafter the reprints are effected by the licensees under the aforesaid arrangement by their respective licencees in India for sale in designated territories. 11. The grievance of the plaintiffs begins with the rampant problem ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of the copyright of the plaintiffs. 15. The plaintiffs have also substantiated their cause of action by stating that in the month of July 2008, the plaintiffs' representative in New York had placed an order for the purchase of two books titled "Microwave Engineering 3/e" by David M. Pozar and "Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics 5/e" by Bruce R. Munson, Donald F. Young and Theodore H Okiishi for the price of US$ 16.60 and US$ 17.30 respectively. The plaintiffs state that the US editions of the above books are priced at US$ 149 and US$ 172.95 respectively. The plaintiffs representative received the said order by way of an India Speed Post sealed package and it was found that the said books are Wiley Student Editions which are restricted for sale in Bangladesh, Myanmar, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Vietnam. Thus, the plaintiffs state that there is no reason to doubt that it is defendant No. 3 managed by Defendant No. 1 and 2 which is carrying out such activities of infringement of the plaintiffs' rights. 16. In August 2008, the plaintiffs again repeated the exercise by ordering 5 titles from the defendants' bookstore on the internet ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ight. As per the defendants, there is no infringement of copyright in the act of export of the books. ii) There is no act or overt act on their part which is actionable within the meaning of the Copyright Act, 1957 as the books once purchased are legally purchased in India and they leave the territory of India once they are exported. Thus, the defendants contend that no act of infringement is done within the territory of India and thereby the provisions of the Copyright Act are not attracted. iii) There is no case made out as regards parallel imports where goods are brought into the territory of India and if the same are found to be infringing, they can be said to be infringement of the rights of the right holder. In contradistinction to this, the case which the plaintiffs are building is of export of the articles from India in which case there cannot be any infringement so far as the export of books from India is concerned and at best, the same may be infringement of the rights of the plaintiffs in the country where the said books are imported. iv) The plaint does not disclose any cause of action qua infringement and same is liable to r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es outside the ones indicated on the books amounts to infringement of copyright. b) To support his arguments, Mr. Rohatgi relied upon Section 14 of the Copyright Act which provides the meaning of 'copyright' which includes the right 'to issue copies of the work to the public and not being copies already in circulation '. As per Mr. Rohatgi, it is the prerogative of the owner of the copyright to issue the copies of the work to the public if the same are not in circulation already and the defendants, by putting into circulation the copies of Low Price Editions meant for specific territories, are violating the right of owner of the copyright and thus causing infringement of the copyright. c) The learned senior counsel has also referred to Section 51 of the Copyright Act to state that infringement is deemed to be done by a person who does without licence or permission any acts which are conferred on the owner of the work. Thus, as per the counsel for the plaintiffs, a clear cut case of infringement is made out. d) The next submission of Mr. Rohatgi, Learned Senior counsel for the plaintiffs is that even the export of the good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s exporting the books. 25. Next submission of Mr. Rohatgi is that a meaningful reading of the words "already in circulation" in Section 14 needs to be made in as much as the copies which are made available to the public in India may not be made available to the public in USA and UK so far as the Low Price Editions/Student editions of the books are concerned. 26. This submission has been made to controvert the argument of first sale doctrine to demonstrate that the interpretation of first sale doctrine given by the defendants would mean that once the sale of the article has been effected in India, then the owner loses/exhausts all the rights to control the subsequent sale anywhere in the world which would be incongruous as the books which are in circulation in India may not be in circulation elsewhere in the world. 27. Hence, the submission of Learned Senior counsel for the plaintiffs is that once the export is effected to the territories beyond the ones indicated upon the books, then the books which are not in circulation in the public of that territory are made available to them, which would lead to infringement of the copyright of the plaintiffs. 28. Mr. Rohatgi count....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omestically manufactured copies, the Court did not address the effect of 109(a) on claims involving unauthorized importation of copies made abroad.... 8. ...Quality King dismissed a similar concern that the triggering of 109(a) by foreign sales would require an invalid extra territorial application of the Copyright Act, explaining that merely recognizing the occurrence of such sales "does not require the extra territorial application of the Act any more than 602(a)'s 'acquired abroad' language does. 9. ...The common understanding of the presumption against extra territorial is that a U.S. statute applies only to conduct occurring within, or having effect within, the territory of the United States, unless the contrary is clearly indicated by the statute.... Recognizing the importance of avoiding international conflicts of law in the area of intellectual property, however, we have applied a more robust version of this presumption to the Copyright Act, holding that the Act presumptively does not apply to conduct that occurs abroad even when that conduct produces harmful effects within the United States.... 11. ...In short copies....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the territories where the sales are effected by the owner/authorized to be effected by the owner which means the territories indicated on the book and not beyond the same. Thus, the first sales doctrine has limited applicability to the extent of territorial limitation. 32. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff stated that this Court is the appropriate forum to adjudicate the present dispute as the defendants are offering the books for sale from India, they are purchasing the same from India and thereafter exporting to other territories. The defendants are amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court as they are carrying on such business and residing within territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Section 19 of the Sales of Goods Act, 1930 is relied upon to support the submission that the property in the goods shall pass where the parties intend it to be transferred. 33. He argued that there is a consent decree which is passed against the Defendant No. 2 on 4.2.2008 by United States District Court Southern District, New York whereby the Defendant No. 2 has agreed to suffer a decree of permanent injunction amongst others in the said proceeding. Operative part of the decree re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiffs as it is plaintiffs' rights which are being violated by reason of the defendants' acts. It is also argued by him that similar rights have been protected by this Court in various cases and parties have suffered an injunction against them. The plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable damage if the defendants are not restrained by way of appropriate injunction orders by this Court. Thus, the present case warrants the grant and confirmation of interim orders granted on 17.9.2008 by this Court. 36. Per Contra the submissions of Mr. Rahul Gupta, learned Counsel for the defendants can be summarized in the following manner: a) Mr. Gupta firstly submitted that the present case of the plaintiffs does not fall under any of the provisions of the Copyright Act. Section 51 of the Act was read by Mr. Gupta to contend that there is no provision in the said Section and nor there is any provision under Section 14 of the Act whereby the export of the books would tantamount to infringement. Thus, learned Counsel submitted that no provision of the Copyright Act, 1957 is attracted which can lead to infringement of cop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....strengthen his submission: a) Bobbs Merrill Co. v. Straus decided on 1.6.1908 by the US Supreme Court 210 US 339 (1908) b) Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L'ansa Research International, Inc. decided on 9.3.1998 by the US Supreme Court. c) MIPR 2009 (2) 175 titled Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. and Ors. v. Santosh V.G. decided on 13.4.2009 by this Court. 40. Great stress has been laid to the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Warner Bros Entertainment Inc and Ors. v. Santosh V.G. which according to learned Counsel for the defendants recognizes the said doctrine of first sales in relation to the literary works. The relevant paragraphs relied upon by the defendants are paragraphs 58 and 63 of the judgment. 41. Mr. Gupta also submitted that the foreign judgment/consent decree passed in the US Court is not binding upon this Court and does not effect the case of the defendants. Lastly, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the defendants that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the present matter as there is no cause of action which has occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of this C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (c) [sound recordings] (2) Copyright shall not subsist in any work specified in Sub-section (1), other than a work to which the provisions of Section 40 or Section 41 apply, unless- (i) In the case of published work, the work is first published in India, or where the work is first published outside India, the author is at the date of such publication, or in a case where the author was dead at that date, was at the time of his death, a citizen of India, (ii) In the case of an unpublished work other than [work of architecture], the author is at the date of the making of the work a citizen of India or domiciled in India; and (iii) In the case of [work of architecture], the work is located in India Explanation - In the case of a work of joint authorship, the conditions conferring copyright specified in this sub-section shall be satisfied by all the authors of the work. (3) Copyright shall not subsist- (a) In any cinematograph film if a substantial part of the film is an infringement of the copyright in any other work; (b) In any [sound recording] made in respect of a lit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lation; (iv) to include the work in any cinematograph film; (v) to make any adaptation of the work; (vi) to do in relation to an adaptation of the work any of the acts specified in relation to the work in Sub-clauses (i) to (iv); (d) In the case of a cinematograph film- (i) to make a copy of the film, including a photograph of any image forming part thereof; (ii) to sell or give on hire, or offer for sale or hire, any copy of the film, regardless of whether such copy has been sold or given on hire on earlier occasions; (iii) to communicate the film to the public (e) In the case of a sound recording- (i) to make any other sound recording embodying it; (ii) to sell or give on hire, or offer for sale or hire, any copy of the sound recording regardless of whether such copy has been sold or given on hire on earlier occasions; (iii) To communicate the sound recording to the public Explanation - For the purposes of this Section, a copy which has been sold once shall be deemed to be a copy already in circulation.] &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deration in the present case so as to demarcate the rights which are conferred upon the exclusive licencee which Section 14 provides for and meaning of the copyright in respect of the various subjects of the copyright and definition of the rights. Thus, the rights under Section 14 of the Act can be limited or circumscribed by the owner as per his/her desire in the manner provided in subsequent chapters relating to assignment and transmission. 48. Chapter VI of the Copyright Act deals with the aspect of licensing which is merely a permissive right and is a way of limiting the rights of the license by the owner of the copyright. Section 30 reads as under: 30. Licences by owners of copyright.- The owner of the copyright in any existing work or the prospective owner of the copyright in any future work may grant any interest in the right by licence in writing signed by him or by his duly authorised agent: Provided that in the case of a licence relating to copyright in any future work, the licence shall take effect only when the work comes into existence. Explanation.- Where a person to whom a licence relating to copyright in any future wor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pt of a complaint from the aggrieved party and after holding such inquiry as it considers necessary, pass such order as it may deem fit including an order for the recovery of any royalty payable: Provided that the Copyright Board shall not pass any order under this sub-section to revoke the assignment unless it is satisfied that the terms of assignment are harsh to the assignor in case the assignor is also the author: Provided further that no order of revocation of assignment under this sub-section, shall be made within a period of five years from the date of such assignment. 50. A careful reading of the Section further makes it clear that the owner by exercising the right to licence further demarcates the rights and imposes conditions and limitations by way of a period wise licence or territory wise licence exclusive or non exclusive etc. Licencing is a mode of maximum exploitation of the rights under the Act by imposing conditions and limitations upon the rights. 51. In the present case, the plaintiff No. 1 has authorized the plaintiff No. 2 as an exclusive licencee to publish the books of the plaintiff No. 1 in India for the limited the territ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s net receipt for each reprint. All these denote the intention of the parties to enter into the licensing arrangement. Likewise the plaintiffs have filed in the list of documents the titles of the books wherein the relation between the plaintiff No. 3 and 4, and 5 and 6 are acknowledged on the titles itself. The said titles reads as under: "Copyright (c) 2003 by Pearson Education Inc. This edition is published by arrangement which Pearson Education Inc, one lake street Upper Saddle river, NJ, 07458 USA and Dorling Kindersley Ltd.... .... Published by Dorling Kindersley India Pvt. Ltd., a Licensees of Pearson Education in South Asia.... Similar is the situation with the plaintiff No. 3 and 4. All these documents are prima-facie indications that the plaintiffs 1, 3, 5 are the owners and the plaintiffs No. 2, 4, 6 are licencees for the limited territories. 53. The above interplay of the provisions of the Act clarifies the position that the rights defined under Section 14 of the Act are subject to the provisions of assignment and licensing and their limitations thereof. Further, the right....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all include- (a) an exclusive licensee; 59. The limited applicability of the present Section which defines the owner of the copyright which include the exclusive licensee only for the purposes of Chapter XII is indicative of the legislative intent which is that the Legislature intended to treat the owner of the copyright and exclusive licencee at parity only for the limited purpose of chapter XII and not for all other purposes. 60. The said Chapter XII under the Act deals with the civil remedies including civil remedies for infringement under Section 55 of the Act. The said Section 55 reads as under: 55. Civil remedies for infringement of copyright.--(1) Where copyright in any work has been infringed, the owner of the copyright shall, except as otherwise provided by this Act, be entitled to all such remedies by way of injunction, damages, accounts and otherwise as are or may be conferred by law for the infringement of a right: Provided that if the defendant proves that at the date of the infringement he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that copyright subsisted in the work, the plaintiff shall not be entitled....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scussion and also the meaning of the copyright under Section 14 of the Act. 64. In the present case, the plaintiff Nos. 1, 3 and 5 are the owners of copyright in their respective literary works and they have licenced their rights subject to territorial restrictions as mentioned above to plaintiff Nos. 2, 4 and 6. The rights of the owners of the copyright which are plaintiff Nos. 1, 3, and 5 will be broader and will not be subject to any limitation as against the rights of exclusive licensees which are plaintiff Nos. 2, 4 and 6. 65. The relevant excerpt of Section 14 of the Act states that the right of the owner of the copyright in the literary work will be a).... b) to issue the copies of the work to the public and not being the copies already in circulation c).... 66. The right of the owner of the copyright to issue the copies of the work to the public will not be circumscribed by any territorial limitation. Thus, the owner of the copyright will have the right to issue the copies of the work not being the copies already in circulation worldwide. This proposition also gets amplified by reading subsequent sections in the Act rela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ples to the present case, it can be seen that the plaintiff No. 1, 3 and 5 are the worldwide owners of the books and their copyright as mentioned and averred in the plaint. The plaintiff Nos. 2, 4 and 6 are the exclusive licensees licensed to publish the said books in India and other territories. The plaintiffs' grievance is that Defendant No. 3 Technischer Overseas Pvt. Ltd. which is a bookseller in Delhi is purchasing the said Low Price Editions of the books meant for the Indian market and the territories defined from the plaintiffs No. 2, 4, 6 and is offering the said low prize books from the websites www.alibris.com, www.biblio.com to territories outside the prescribed ones on the book is infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs. 70. The said acts of the defendants of purchase of the books from the exclusive licensees/licensees are legitimate in nature and do not hinder or take away anyone's rights including the rights of exclusive licensees/licensee. But once the said defendant No. 3 offers for sale the books or publications (which are fettered by territorial restrictions purchased from exclusive licensees) and puts them into circulation by selling or offering for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of the copyright" The opening words of the Section 51 categorizes the prerequisites of the infringement which are: a) without a licence granted by owner of the copyright or b) without the license granted by the registrar of copyright or c) in contravention of the conditions of a licence so granted or d) any conditions imposed by a competent authority under the act. 73. In all these situations, the doing of the acts of the owner would be deemed to be an infringement under the Act. The said situations are disjunctive and not conjunctive in the sense that doing of the act even in one situation would be equally an infringement as in other one. 74. As per the preceding discussion, the rights of the owner of the copyright that is plaintiff Nos. 1, 3, 5 are violated as the same are falling under a) being unlicensed acts from the owner and acts of the owner of the copyright within the meaning of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. 75. Another perspective would be that the acts of the defendants would also be in contravention to the conditions of a license so granted by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the said license as he is aware of the same at the time of making the said purchase and purchased the same while accepting it. To that extent, the position of a licensee will remain the same universally and the statutory recognition of the said rule, whether it exists or not, will only create the exception for the bona fide purchaser without notice. 79. The said position of the licensee is equally applicable in cases of computer software and is seen in normal course when anyone purchases the software. Computer software are mostly licensed and are sold and distributed with their own conditions and limitations. The purchasers of the said computer software either from the owner or from the licensee is aware of the arrangement or license agreement that the said computer software for instance is meant for single user or multiple usage. The said purchaser is within notice while making purchase of the said software and is thus bound by the said conditions of the license. Once the said purchaser violates the condition of the said license, he/she becomes liable for infringement of copyright of the owner. 80. Likewise is the case with the books in the present matter. Once the defenda....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fendants was that in the absence of exports being recognized as infringement, the same cannot become infringement under the Act. 84. I have examined the argument of the defendants carefully in relation to exports not being recognized expressly as infringement. The question in the present case is not merely as to whether exports should be recognized as infringement within the meaning of the Act, but rather, the question is whether the rights of the owner of the copyright can be circumvented by merely purchasing the work from the exclusive licensee having limited licence to distribute or publish within certain territories and selling the same to countries outside the territories prescribed by taking the orders in India, reaping the benefits of the said sale in India and causing contravention of the license granted by the owner of the copyright. If it violates the rights of the owner to put the work into circulation within the meaning of Section 14(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 51(a), the same would amount to infringement within the Act and it may be incidental that the defendants are carrying out activities which lead to export. 85. Further, the argument relating to non-recogniti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. 88. By virtue of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court possesses the necessary jurisdiction required to entertain and try the present suit as the defendants are carrying on their business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The books are ordered online on the website which bears the address of the defendants carrying on business in Delhi. The orders are taken and executed in Delhi and the said Low Price Edition books are couriered/speed posted from Delhi. Lastly, the profits arising of the said sales out of the books are realized by the defendants in Delhi. All these necessary and essential parts of the cause of action have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. This Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the present suit by way Section 20(a) as the defendants are carrying business in Delhi and Section 20(c) as the part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 89. A related argument of the defendants qua jurisdiction was that this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction as till the time the purchases are made th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in circulation" clearly recognizes the first sales doctrine whereby once the owner of the copyright has exercised his right to issue to the copies, then the owner loses all future rights to control the subsequent sales on the same work. 94. Further, learned Counsel for the defendants has read the explanation appended to the Section which reads "explanation thereto for the purposes of this Section, a copy which has been sold once shall be deemed to be a copy already in circulation." 95. The owner's right is not absolute but is curtailed by the first sales doctrine as per the submission of the learned Counsel for the defendants. 96. Warner Bros. (supra) has been relied upon which according to learned Counsel for the defendant recognizes the said doctrine of first sale in relation to literary works. Para 58 of the Judgment is reproduced hereinafter: 58 Exhaustion of rights is linked to the distribution right. The right to distribute objects (making them available to the public) means that such objects (or the medium on which a work is fixed) are released by or with the consent of the owner as a re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of copyrights in respect of each nature of work (literary, dramatic, or musical work, on the one hand, computer programme, artistic work, cinematograph film, etc on the other) are distinct - evident from the listing out of such rights, separately, in Clauses (a) to (f) of the Section. The reference to "copies in circulation" has to be therefore, in the context; the phrase is used to limit the copyright owner's right to dictate further use of a literary, musical and dramatic work (Section 14(a)(ii)). None of the owners of other classes of work are subject to that limitation. The restriction of one class of copyright owner, structured in the statute serves a dual purposeit limits the owner of that class of copyright; and at the same time leaves it open to the copyright owner of other kinds of work, to place such restrictions. 98. Thus, as per the learned Counsel for the defendants, by the applicability of the first sale doctrine alias the exhaustion principle, the plaintiffs have no right to complain against the defendants' acts of exporting Low Price Edition books in the foreign market. 99. The genesis of the said principle of exhaustion of rights is based on theory....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. Decision dated 20.5.2008 by US District Court, Washington, (4) UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Troy Augusto, et. Al., dated 10.6.2008, US District Court, California and also the latest judgment passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court in Warner Bros. (supra). 101. In this respect I would say that the English case laws relied upon by the defendant are the same which have been analyzed thoroughly by the Learned Single Judge of this Court in Warner Bros (Supra) where the Learned Single Judge was concerned with the importation of the cinematograph works and came to the conclusion that the doctrine of exhaustion of rights will be confined to literary works only and will be inapplicable to the cinematograph works as the said explanation appended to Section 14 is confined to literary works only as has been discussed in paragraph 63 of that judgment which is afore-mentioned. 102. Thus, the learned Single Judge has merely came to the conclusion that the doctrine of the exhaustion/first sale is applicable to literary works although the same has not been applied by the Learned Single Judge in Warner Bros (Supra). 103. Further, the Learned Single Judge in his ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the exclusive licensees who have limited rights and not from the owner. In these circumstances, the question of exhaustion of rights of owner in the copyright does not arise at all. 105. The learned Single Judge again in paragraph 65 of Warner Bros. (supra) doubted the application of international exhaustion and rather expressed his concerns about the illogical arguments and observed results arising out of the applicability in case of licenses. Para 65 reads as under: 65. There is yet another reason why the defendant's argument about exhaustion cannot be accepted in India. Now, a copyright owner has the right and authority to parcel out his right which are essentially commercial in nature. A film producer, or owner of copyright in a sound recording, might for instance, decide to distribute his products, through licensees. These licensees can be limited, in terms of period; in terms of copies entitled to be sold, or hired, or in terms of number of performances and so on. They can also - by reason of Section 19, be limited geographically. If the defendants' contentions were to be accepted, the moment such licensees gain copies, the copyright owners wou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the principle of exhaustion or extinguishment of rights defeat the rights of the owner. This is the only harmonious interpretation possible by invocation of doctrine of first sales in the present case. 107. In view of the aforementioned reasoning, the argument of applicability of first sale doctrine defeating the rights of the owner fails and the same cannot abridge the rights of the owner to complain of infringement in the present case even if it is applied. With this, I end the second part of my discussion. 108. The related arguments of the defendants about the Specific Relief Act fails as a prima facie right has been established in favour of the plaintiff. Further, there is no unfair competition or barrier to the trade which has been effected by the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs' rights are emanating from the Statute and thus these aspects do not require discussion and the arguments are rejected as meritless. 109. I shall now proceed with the conclusion. Conclusion a) The combined reasoning given under the two heads leads to the conclusion that the defendants' acts are prima facie infringing in nature. The defences put forth by the d....