1st GALGOTIAS UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON TEAM CODE:T-7

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

HIGH COURT OF KELJI

Original Writ Jurisdiction

W.P. (CIVIL) NO. OF 2018

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

THE ROLLA FILMS…………………………………………………………. PETITIONER

v.

GOVERNMENT LAW UNIVERSITY, KELJI AND FLORENCE PUBLIC

SCHOOL…………………………………………………………………….. RESPONDENT

UPON THE SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION
JUSTICES OF THE HIGH COURT OF KELJI

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Table of contents Memorandum for the Petitioner

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... 1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... 3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .............................................................................................. 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS............................................................................................................. 7

QUESTIONS PRESENTED .......................................................................................................... 9

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS .................................................................................................... 10

PLEADINGS ............................................................................................................................... 11

1. WHETHER THE WRIT FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
IS MAINTAINABLE .................................................................................................................. 11

1.1 COPYRIGHT IS A LEGAL RIGHT........................................................................................ 12

1.2 VIOLATION OF THE LEGAL RIGHT .................................................................................. 14

1.3 WRIT PETITION CAN BE FILED AGAINST GOVT. LAW UNIVERSITY, KELJI AND
FLORENCE PUBLIC SCHOOL ............................................................................................ 15

2. WHETHER THE ACT DONE BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KELJI AND FLORENCE PUBLIC

SCHOOL IS JUSTIFIABLE ........................................................................................................ 17

2.1 VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS LAID DOWN IN THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957…….17

2.2 LOSS OF MONETARY GAIN AND INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT BY

ADAPTATION ....................................................................................................................... 18

PRAYER ............................................................................................................................................... 19

1
List of Abbreviations Memorandum for the Petitioner

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS DEFINITION
¶ Para
& And
A.I.R. All India Reporter
AIJEL All India Judgments Electronic Library
All. Allahabad
Art. Article
Anr. Another
Bom Bombay
BomCR Bombay Cases Reporter
CBFC Central Board of Film Certification
Corp. Corporation
Ed. Edition
FPS Florence Public School
Govt. Government
GLU Government Law University
Inc. Incorporated
IP Intellectual Property
ITR Income Tax Reporter
JIPR Journal of Intellectual Property Right
Ors. Others
Ltd. Limited
PHL Public Health And Law Centre
S.C. Supreme Court
S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases
SCALE Supreme Court Almanac
Sec Section
WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization
U.P. Uttar Pradesh

2
Index of Authorities Memorandum for the Petitioner

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES CITED

S. no Cases Citation

1 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India. (1984) 3 S.C.C. 161.

2 Buck v. Jewell Lasalle Realty co. 283 U.S. 191 (1931).

3 Colombia Broadcasting system Inc. v. Democratic 412 U.S. 94.

National committee.
4 Committee of Managementand another v. State of 2007 I.T.R. All. 224.
U.P.
5 E.S.P. Rajaram & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 581.

6 Garware Plastics & Polyster Ltd. v. Telelink. A.I.R. 1989 Bom 331.

7 Kalem Co. v. Harper Brothers. 22 U.S. 55.

8 Keshav Singh v. Speaker Legislative Assembly. A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 745, (1965) 1
S.C.R. 413.

9 M/S Entertainment Network (India) Ltd . v. M/S 2008 (9) SCALE 69.
Super Cassette Industries Ltd.
10 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd . 545 U.S. 913 (2005).

11 P.Kasilingam v. P.S.G.College of Technology. (2010) 8 S.C.C. 100.

12 Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar. A.I.R. 2010 S.C. 1384.

13 Rajasthan SEB v. Mohan Lal. A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1857.

14 Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc. 464 U.S. 417 (1984).

15 Spelling Goldberg Production Inc. v. BPC (1981) R.P.C.283.

publishing Ltd.

16 Star India (P) Ltd. v. Leo Burnett (India) (P) Ltd. (2003) 2 BomCR. 655.

17 State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka UD Karmachari. A.I.R. 2009 S.C. 2249.

Sanstha
18 Telmak Teleproducts Ltd.v. Bond International. (1985) 5 IPR 203.

19 Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P. (1984) 3 S.C.C. 161.

20 United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon. (2010) 8 S.C.C. 100.

3
Index of Authorities Memorandum for the Petitioner

21 Vide Anandi Mukta Sadhguru Trust v. V.R. RudanI. A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1607.

22 Zee Telefims Ltd. v. Union of India. A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 2677.

SITES REFERRED

 Intellectual Property
https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/intellectual-property/what-is-copyright.html.
 TRIPS
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm.
 Agreement On TRIPS
https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf.
 Constitution Of India
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/128634/.
 Cinematography Act
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/in/in034en.pdf.
http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/bareacts/cinematograph/index.php?Title=Cinematogra
ph%20Act,%201952.
https://www.india.gov.in/sites/upload_files/npi/files/coi_part_full.pdf.

STATUTE REFERRED

1. THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957.

2. THE CINEMATOGRAPHIC ACT, 1952.

3. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.

TREATIES

1. WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANISATION.

2. TRADE RELATED ASPECTS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.

4
 Index of Authorities Memorandum for the Petitioner

BOOKS REFERRED

1. DR.V.K.AHUJA, LAW OF COPYRIGHT AND NEIGHBOURING RIGHTS:

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES (Lexis Nexis, 2009).

2. P.NARAYAN, COPYRIGHT AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS (2nd ed. Eastern Law House, 2002).

3. N.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN& T.G.AGITHA, PRINCIPLES OF INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY, (1st ed. Eastern Book Company, 2009).

4. ELIZABETH VERKEY, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (1 st ed. Eastern Law House, 2015).

5. A.V. NARASIMHA RAO, COPYRIGHT LAW CONCEPT AND CASES (1 st

ed. ICFAI University Press, 2005).

6. DR. AVADHESH OJHA, COMMENTARIES ON CORPORATE ALLIED &

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS WITH STATUTORY MANUAL (1 st ed. The

Tax Publishers, 2008).

7. DR DURGA DAS BASU, INTRODUCTION TO CONSTITUTION (21 st ed.

Eastern Book Company,2013).

8. DR.J.N.PANDEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (38 th ed. Central Law Agency, 2002).

9. DR DURGA DAS BASU, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (8 th ed. Lexis Nexis, 2011).

10. DR AVATAR SINGH, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW (1 st ed.

Eastern Book Company,2013).

11. DR.G.B.REDDY, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE LAW (1 st ed.

Gogia Law Agency, 2015).

5
Statement of Jurisdiction Memorandum for the Petitioner

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE

HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KELJI UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION IN APPREHENSION OF THE VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT
GUARANTEED BY THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957.

6
Statement of Facts Memorandum for the Petitioner

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Sager is a developing country that is blessed with a healthy demographic dividend of 25

percent population aged between 10 and 22 years.The Public Health Ministry of Sager
released a report that found around 63 percent of the youngsters in the aforementioned age
bracket exposed to drug abuse that went from moderate to severe. Specifically in the capital
city Kelji, because of lack of strict supervision and detection mechanisms, government school
children were found to be most vulnerable. Around 80 percent of them were affected by drugs.
2. On October, 2017 the PHL Centre of GLU, Kelji screened a movie “Narcoz” for children from
the Florence Public School (FPS), one of the worst drug affected schools. The blockbuster
movie graphically depicted harmful effects of drugs on human body, relationships and societ y
as a whole and was declared a must watch by the critics for those struggling with drugs related
issues. Producers-The Rolla Films had no plans to release the movie in Sager as the market
didn’t seem profitable enough. If at all, any one wished to screen the movie in a non-release
country, s/he had to buy screening rights priced expensively at ten lakh Sager rupees per
screening.
3. The version that was screened by GLU, Kelji for FPS students was downloaded from the
website www.kit-torrent.com, which is a peer-to-peer decentralized global file sharing system.
After the screening, teachers of FPS also trained bright students to prepare a play based upon
the movie Narcoz, which was enacted across government schools in Kelji from January to
March 2018.
4. In its Annual Report of 2018, the GLU, Kelji showed Narcoz screening as community
outreach activity (COA) of its students. Also, the FPS showed play enactment as an
extracurricular activity in its annual school magazine. For both, the COA and extracurricular
activity, the institutions charge an annual fee from students that made 5% of the total fee
supposed to be paid every year.
5. Sager is a Party to The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS Agreement) and its domestic laws are pari materia with laws of India. Rangland is
also a Party to TRIPS and has a robust domestic intellectual property (IP) regime.
6. In July 2018, therefore, Sager banned the downloading of files from www.kit-torrent.com.
Whenever, the files were clicked to be downloaded by the user, following message was
displayed:
“This URL has been blocked under the instructions of the Competent Government
Authority or in compliance with the orders of a Court of competent jurisdiction.

7
Statement of Facts Memorandum for the Petitioner

Viewing, downloading, exhibiting or duplicating an illicit copy of the contents

under this URL is punishable as an offence under the laws of Sager, including but
not limited to under Sections of the Copyright Act, 1957 which prescribe
imprisonment for 3 years and also fine of upto Rs. 3,00,000/-. Any person
aggrieved by any such blocking of this URL may contact at
[email protected] who will, within 48 hours, provide you the details of
relevant proceedings under which you can approach the relevant High Court or
Authority for redressal of your grievance”

7. The matter of “Narcoz” screening garnered significant attention from IP various

enthusiasts. Some of the IP based media portals asked representatives from GLU Kelji
and FPS, whether they could continue with their efforts to fight drug abuse among
children by using movie such as Narcoz? They replied that Sager IP laws have enough
space to allow such education and socially beneficial activities despite new bans and
amendments that were arbitrary and excessive and came as a result of pressure from
Rangland authorities. In a press release on 1 August 2018, they also jointly declared the
next screening of movie and enactment of plays in January 2019 and stated that the
awareness drive will be taken to whole of the country for the benefit of youth.

8. Following all this, the Rolla Films have approached the Kelji High Court seeking
appropriate remedies against the conduct of GLU, Kelji and FPS as per applicable laws.
Further, it is claimed by The Rolla Films that new penalties would also be attracted as
they preceded the press release.

8
Questions Presented Memorandum for the Petitioner

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. WHETHER THE WRIT FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE INDIAN

CONSTITUTION IS MAINTAINABLE.

2. WHETHER THE ACT DONE BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KELJI AND

FLORENCE PUBLIC SCHOOL IS JUSTIFIABLE.

9
Summary of Pleadings Memorandum for the Petitioner

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1. WHETHER THE WRIT FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE INDIAN

CONSTITUTION IS MAINTAINABLE.

The Petitioner most humbly submits that the writ filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution is
maintainable which has been filed with the apprehension of violation of Copyright guaranteed
by the Copyright Act, 1957.The writ can be filed against Government Law University of Kelji
and Florence Public School as it comes under the definition of “state” under Article 12 of the
Indian Constitution. And there is clear violation to the copyright guaranteed by the Copyright
Act, 1957. Thus the writ is maintainable.

2. WHETHER THE ACT DONE BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KELJI AND FLORENCE

PUBLIC SCHOOL IS JUSTIFIABLE.

According to section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 the act done by the Govt. Law
University of Kelji amounts to infringement of Copyright as they screened the movie without
owing screening rights from the owner of the Cinematograph film. Also the school in which
they had screened the movie organized a play based on the film and enacted across various
government schools which is violative of the provisions laid down in the Copyright Act ,1957.

10
 Pleadings Memorandum for the Petitioner

PLEADINGS

1. WHETHER THE WRIT FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION

IS MAINTAINABLE.
1. Article 226 of the Indian Constitution guarantees to all its citizens the right to move to the High

Court for any violation or infringement of any fundamental right or legal right.1
2. Article 226 of the Constitution confers a power on all the High Courts of India which they did
not enjoy before the commencement of the Constitution. It enables them to issue to any person
or authority including, in appropriate cases any Government, order or Writs in the nature of

Habeus Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto and Certiorari2, for the enforcement of
any of the rights, conferred by PART III and for any other purpose, i.e., for the enforcement of
any other legal right. The power conferred by the High Court under Art. 226(1) can, in a proper

case, be exercised even against the Legislature.3

3. It is most respectfully submitted by the Petitioner before this Hon’ble High Court of Kelji, that
the writ petition is maintainable. It is submitted that Government Law University, Kelji and

Florence Public School comes under the word “State” under Article 124 for the purpose of
Part III of the Indian Constitution, as the duties fulfilled by it, i.e., education, is merely an
extension of the state’s function. It is submitted that the Respondent comes under the definition
of “State” under the Constitution and is under a constitutional mandate to ensure that the
fundamental rights of the people are protected. Its machinery should function in a way to attain
the ideals of the Constitution as enshrined in the Preamble.

4. In the decided case of Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P5, the Supreme Court observed that Article
winds up the list of authorities falling within the definition by referring to “other authorities”
within the territory of India, which cannot obviously be read as ejusdem generis6 with either
the Government or the Legislature or Local authorities.

1
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 S.C.C. 161.
2
P.Kasilingam v. P.S.G.College of Technology, (1981) 1 S.C.C. 412; See also,United Bank of India v. Satyawati
Tondon (2010) 8 S.C.C. 100.
3
Power, Privileges and Immunity of the State Legislature, Keshav Singh v. Speaker Legislative Assembly, A.I.R.
1965 S.C. 745, (1965) 1 S.C.R. 413.
4
Article 12: In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, “the state” include the Government and Parliament
of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the State and all local or other authorities within the
territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.
5
Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 162.
6
See, Jayantbhatt, Construction Ejusdem Generis, http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/edjem.htm.

11
 Pleadings Memorandum for the Petitioner

5. The word “State” is of wide amplitude and capable of comprehending every authority created
under the statue and functioning within the territory of India. There is no characterization of
the nature of authority set up under a statute for the purpose of administering laws enacted by
the Parliament or by the State including those vested with the duty to make decisions in order

to implement those laws7.

6. In the decided case of Rajasthan SEB v. Mohan Lal8, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed
that “The State as defined in Article 12 is thus comprehended to include bodies created for the
purpose of promoting the educational and economic interest of the people.”
7. Here Florence Public School is an institution created for providing education and hence would
come under the definition of “State”. Thus, it is humbly submitted that the Govt. Law
University, Kelji and Florence Public School comes under the definition “State”
8. In this present case, Producers-Rolla films had no plans to release the movie in Sager as the
market didn’t seem profitable enough. In spite of that, the PHL centre of Government Law

University Kelji screened the movie “Narcoz” without the permission from the owner 9.
Therefore, screening the movie without obtaining the screening rights results in infringement
of copyright.
9. The petitioner humbly submits to the court that there is a violation of the legal right of the
petitioner. Therefore, the writ is maintainable.

1.1. Copyright is a legal right

10. Copyright means the exclusive right granted under the provisions of the Copyright Act

195710, to do or authorize others to do certain acts in relation to;

7
Supra note 5, at 10.
8
See also, Rajasthan SEB v. Mohan Lal, 1967 S.C.R. (3) 377;
See also, Vide Anandi Mukta Sadhguru Trust v. V.R. Rudani, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1607; State of Assam v. Barak
Upatyaka UD Karmachari Sanstha, A.I.R. 2009 S.C. 2249.
9
Moot Proposition ¶2.
10
Section 14, The Copyright Act, 1957.

12
Pleadings Memorandum for the Petitioner

(1) literary, dramatic or musical works

(2) artistic work

(3) cinematograph film

(4) sound recording

11. Copyright is a right given by the law to creators of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic

works and of those producers of cinematographic films and sound recording 11. In fact, it is
a bundle of rights including, inter-alia, rights of reproduction, communication to the public,
adaptation and translation of the work there could be slight variations in the composition of
the rights depending on the work.
12. Copyright ensures certain minimum safeguards of the rights of authors over their creations,
thereby protecting and rewarding creativity being the keystone of progress, no civilized
society can afford to ignore the basic requirement of encouraging the same. Economic and

social development of a society is dependent on creativity12. The protection provided by

copyright to the efforts of writers, artists, designers, dramatists, musicians and producers of
sound recordings, cinematograph films and computer software, creates an atmosphere
conductive to creativity, which induces them to create more and motivates others to

create13.
13. Copyright is a legal right granted to a creator of an original artistic work by the law of the
country, for its use and distribution. It is a set of exclusive rights to determine whether, and

under what conditions, this original work may be used by others14.

14. Copyright refers to a bundle of exclusive rights vested in the owner of copyright by virtue of
sec.14 of the Act. These rights can be exercised only by the owner of copyright or by any
other person who is duly licensed in this regard by the owner of copyright. These rights
include the right of adaptation, right of reproduction, right of publication, right to make

translations, communication to public etc.15

11
N.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN& T.G.AGITHA, PRINCIPLES OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (1 st ed. Eastern
Book Company, 2009).
12
DR.V.K.AHUJA, LAW OF COPYRIGHT AND NEIGHBOURING RIGHTS: NATIONAL AND
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES (Lexis Nexis, 2009).
13
Supra note, 11 at 12.
14
Lisa P Lukose, Copyright Issues, 21 JIPR, 275-282 (2016).
15
ELIZABETH VERKEY, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (1st ed. Eastern Law House, 2015).

13
Pleadings Memorandum for the Petitioner

1.2 Violation of the legal right

15. “Cinematographic film” means any work of visual recording on any medium produced
through a process from which a moving image may be produced by any means and includes
a sound recording accompanying such visual recording and “cinematograph” shall be
constructed as including any work produced by any process analogous to cinematography
including video films.16
Meaning of Copyright in the case of cinematographic 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 as been sold or given on hire on earlier occasions;
(iii) to communicate the film to the public;17

16. Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed-

(a) when any person, without a license granted by the owner of the copyright or Registrar
of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a license so
granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act-
(i) does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the
owner of the Copyright, or
(ii) permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the
public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the Copyright in the
work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such
communication to the public would be an infringement of Copyright18.

17. In Spelling Goldberg Production Inc. v. BPC publishing Ltd.19, the defendants had acquired
possession of the plaintiff’s film. It was on these facts that the court had held that it was a
copy of the plaintiff’s film. Also in order to constitute infringement of a Cinematographic
film, it must be an exact copy that is facsimile copy of the original film. Copy of the film
means to make a physical copy of that film and not to remake the film.20

16
Section 2(f) The Copyright Act, 1957.
17
Supra note, 8 at 11.
18
Section 51 The Copyright Act, 1957.
19
Spelling Goldberg Production Inc. v. BPC publishing Ltd (1981) R.P.C. 283.
20
Star India (P) Ltd. v. Leo Burnett (India) (P) Ltd, (2003) 2 BomCR. 655.

14
Pleadings Memorandum for the Petitioner

18. “Narcoz” is a certified film under the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) (often
referred to as the Censor Board. Since the owner21 of the film is vested with the right of
public exhibition of films. Whoever without the license granted from the owner reproduces
that work or screened the film without obtaining the screening rights is said to have commit
infringement of Copyright 22.

19. Although it was released only in English speaking Countries and was not available to
viewing for the audience in Sager. Producers- The Rolla Films had no plans to release the
movie in Sager as the market didn’t seem profitable enough if at all, any one wished to
screen the movie in a non-released country ,had to buy screening rights priced expensively
at ten lakh Sager rupees per screening23. So the PHL Centre of GLU, was entitled to obtain
the screening rights before screening the movie. The object of The Copyright Act is to
maintain a balance between the interest of the owner of the copyright in protecting his
works on the one hand and the interest of the public to have access to the words on the other
hand 24.Therefore the statutory right of the owner granted by the law of Intellectual Property
is being violated here.

1.3 Writ petition can be filed against Govt. Law University, Kelji and Florence Public
School

20. In K.Krishnamacharyulu and Ors. v. Sri Venkateshwara Hindu College of Engineering and
Anr25 the Apex Court held that writ petition against an unaided private institution is
maintainable. It was further held that if element of public interest is involved, and then the
writ petition against private educational institution can be heard.

21. Govt. Law University of Kelji, itself is a govt. university therefore, the university can be
held liable for the infringement of copyright.

21
Sec 17, The Copyright Act, 1957.
22
Supra note 18, at 13.
23
Moot Proposition ¶ 2.
24
M/S Entertainment Network (India) Ltd . v. M/S Super Cassette Industries Ltd., 2008 (9) SCALE 69.
25
K.Krishnamacharyulu and Ors. v. Sri Venkateshwara Hindu College of Engineering and Anr, 2007 I.T.R. All.
224.

15
Pleadings Memorandum for the Petitioner

22. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, it is inferred
that incase a private body is allowed to discharge public duty or positive obligation of public
nature, the said body can be treated as a “State” within the meaning of Article 1226.

23. The Apex Court, in its decision in the case of Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar27, held that writ lies
against a person or a body, if it is a statutory body or performs a public function or
discharges a public or statutory duty. Thus, Florence Public School can also be held liable
for the infringement of copyright.

26
Zee Telefims Ltd. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 2677.
27
Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar, A.I.R. 2010 S.C. 1384;
See also, E.S.P. Rajaram & Ors v. Union of India & Ors., A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 581.

16
Pleadings Memorandum for the Petitioner

2. WHETHER THE ACT DONE BY THE GOVERNMENT LAW UNIVERSITY OF

KELJI AND FLORENCE PUBLIC SCHOOL IS JUSTIFIABLE

24. The act done by the GLU Kelji, i.e., screening of the movie “Narcoz” for the children from
the Florence Public School, one of the worst drug affected schools is not justifiable. Since
they had not owned screening rights from the owner, i.e., Producers- The Rolla Films. The
Copyright Act is meant to protect the owner of the Copyright against unauthorized
performances of this work, thereby entitling him to earn monetary gain from his intellectual
property, here screening the movie without obtaining the screening rights ,GLU Kelji is
denying the monetary gain of the producers of Rolla films which they imposed on the
screening rights.

25. In Gareware Plastics and Polyster Ltd .v. Telelink28, copyright infringement was alleged by
exhibition of films and copyrighted works, through cable network to residents of an
apartment block. The audience who watches such video films would have otherwise paid for
watching the film. In fact, the audience does pay the defendants for watching the film. The
author of the copyright is therefore, directly affected as he is deprived of monetary from his
Intellectual Property. Therefore, the author of the work shall have the right of authorizing
the communication to the public29.

2.1 Contributory Infringement

26. Contributory Infringement 30 is a form of secondary liability for direct infringement of a

copyright.ie, a means by which a person may be held liable for infringement even though he
or she did not actually engage in infringing activities. The Copyright Act does not expressly
impose liability for contributory infringement. 31 Contributory infringement laws impose
liability on someone who has not actively participated in infringing activities, but has
nevertheless contributed to the infringement violations. It is held that one who knowingly
induces, causes or materially contributes to Copyright Infringement ,by another but who has

28
Gareware Plastics and Polyster Ltd .v. Telelink , A.I.R. 1989 Bom. 331.
29
WIPO Copyright Treaty 1996, Art 8.
30
Section 51(a)(ii) & sec. 51(b) The Copyright Act, 1957.
31
A.V. NARASIMHA RAO, COPYRIGHT LAW CONCEPT AND CASES (1st ed. ICFAI University Press,
2005).

17
Pleadings Memorandum for the Petitioner

not committed or participated in the infringing acts him or herself, may be held liable as a
Contributory infringer if he or she had knowledge, or reason to know, of the infringement.32

27. The PHL Centre of the Government Law University Kelji screened the movie knowingly
that it would amounts to infringement since it was banned in their country. Moreover, both
GLU Kelji and FPS jointly replied to the questions raised by some of the IP based media
portals, whether they could continue with their efforts to fight drug abuse among children by
using movies such as “Narcoz” that despite new bans sager IP laws have enough space to
allow such educational and socially beneficial activities and also declared that the awareness
drive i.e., the screening of movie and enactment of play will be taken to whole of the
country33. Therefore it amounts to Contributory Infringement.

2.2 Loss of monetary gain and infringement of copyright by adaptation

28. The copyright act is meant to protect the owner of the copyright against unauthorized
performance of the work thereby entitling him to earn monetary gain from his Intellectual
property. Here the downloading and screening of the movie denied the entitling of the
monetary gain of the petitioner34.

29. According to sec. 2(a) (v)35, rearrangement or alteration of any work amounts to adaptation.
The Florence Public School has adapted the whole movie without the knowledge or license
of the owner and prepared a play which was enacted across the Govt. schools in Kelji.

32
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005);
See also, Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984);
See also, Kalem Co. v. Harper Brothers, 22 U.S. 55;
See also, Colombia Broadcasting system Inc. v. Democratic National committee, 412 U.S. 94.
33
Moot proposition ¶7.
34
Garware Plastics & Polyster Ltd.v. Telelink, A.I.R. 1989 Bom 331;Telmak Teleproducts Ltd.v. Bond
International, (1985) 5 IPR 203; Buck v. Jewell Lasalle Realty co, 283 U.S. 191 (1931).
35
Copyright Act,1957.

18
Prayer Memorandum for the Petitioner

PRAYER

In the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the court may please
adjudge and declare that:

1. The writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India is maintainable.
2. The act done by Government Law University and Florence Public School is justifiable.

AND/OR

The court may pass any other order that iy deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and good
faith.

19