Problems

1. A work of fiction is written by X. Y reads the books and authors a work carrying 10 chapters of the book written
by authors a work carrying 10 chapters of the book written by X which he has paraphrased though marginally.
Whether Y has infringed the right of X?

Has Y infringed the rights of X?

Answer: Yes

Provision under which this problem comes and its explanation

Provision:

 Copyright Act, 1957 (India) - Sections 13, 14, and 51

 Explanation: According to the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright subsists in original literary works (Section 13).
The author of a work has the exclusive right to reproduce the work, issue copies, and communicate the work
to the public (Section 14). Infringement of copyright occurs when a person, without the consent of the
copyright owner, does any act which is exclusively reserved for the owner (Section 51).

Procedure to solve this problem

1. Notice of Infringement:

o The copyright owner (X) should issue a formal notice of infringement to Y, demanding that Y ceases
the infringing activities and compensates for damages caused by the infringement.

2. Legal Action:

o If Y does not comply with the notice, X can file a civil lawsuit for copyright infringement in the
appropriate court.

o X can seek remedies including an injunction to stop further infringement, damages, and an account of
profits gained by Y from the infringing work.

3. Criminal Proceedings:

o Copyright infringement also has criminal penalties under the Copyright Act, including imprisonment
and fines. X can file a criminal complaint against Y if deemed necessary.

Referential Case Law

 R.G. Anand v. Delux Films & Ors. (1978)

o In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India held that mere paraphrasing or copying of
substantial portions of a copyrighted work constitutes copyright infringement. The court emphasized
the importance of originality and the exclusive rights of the copyright owner.

Conclusion

In this scenario, Y has infringed the copyright of X by reproducing substantial portions of X’s book, even though
paraphrased marginally. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, X has the exclusive right to reproduce and issue copies of the
work. The proper procedure includes issuing a notice of infringement, followed by legal action if necessary. The case of
R.G. Anand v. Delux Films supports the position that substantial paraphrasing constitutes infringement, reinforcing X’s
right to seek legal remedies.

2. The registrar appointed under protection of plant varieties and farmers rights act refuses and application for
correction of the register being submitted by the registered breeder of the plant variety in oral form, can such
refusal be challenged.
One-Word Answer: Yes

Provision and Explanation:

 Provision: Section 39 of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001.

 Explanation: Section 39(1) of the Act deals with the procedures and powers of the Registrar regarding the
correction of the register. The Act requires that any corrections to the register must be formal and adhere to
prescribed procedures. Oral submissions are not recognized for such formal amendments or corrections.

Procedure to Solve This Problem:

1. Formal Application: The breeder should submit a formal written application for correction of the register to
the Registrar.

2. Review of Application: The Registrar must review the application according to the prescribed procedures and
regulations.

3. Appeal Mechanism: If the Registrar refuses the application, the breeder can challenge the refusal by filing an
appeal before the Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal (PVPAT) as per Section 56 of the Act.

4. Documentation: Ensure all supporting documents are properly submitted as required by the Act and
regulations.

Referential Case Law:

 Case: S.K. Singh v. Union of India (2007)

 Details: This case dealt with procedural errors in the application process under the Plant Varieties Act. It
emphasized the necessity of following prescribed procedures for corrections and the right to appeal against
administrative decisions.

Conclusion: The refusal by the Registrar to accept an oral application for correction can indeed be challenged. The
breeder must follow the formal procedures outlined in the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001,
and can appeal to the Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal if necessary. The reliance on oral submissions does
not meet the formal requirements stipulated for such corrections.

3. A has a paper weight in the shape of a car. Is it registerable decide?

One-Word Answer: Yes

Provision and Explanation:

 Provision: Designs Act, 2000

 Explanation: Under the Designs Act, 2000, a design is registerable if it is new or original, not previously
disclosed to the public, and applied to an article. A paperweight in the shape of a car can qualify as a design if
it meets these criteria, being a new and original shape applied to a functional item.

Procedure to Solve This Problem:

1. Application Submission: A must file an application for registration of the design with the Design Office,
including detailed drawings or photographs of the paperweight.

2. Examination: The Design Office will examine the application to ensure that the design is new, original, and
meets all requirements.

3. Publication: If the design passes the examination, it will be published in the Design Journal.
 4. Objections and Approval: If there are no objections, or if objections are resolved, the design will be registered
and a certificate of registration will be issued.

Referential Case Law:

 Case: A.K. Khandelwal v. Union of India (2013)

 Details: This case discussed the registration of unique shapes and designs under the Designs Act. It highlighted
the importance of novelty and originality in the design's eligibility for registration.

Conclusion: A paperweight in the shape of a car is registerable under the Designs Act, 2000, provided it is new and
original and fulfills the criteria set for design registration. The design must be formally applied for, examined, and
approved by the Design Office.

4. He conducts a research study on the health conditions of rural children during a debate on the program for
improvement of health conditions of rural children. H research report is circulated in Lok Sabha. The circulation is
made without the permission of the author. Can he bring legal action against it.

One-Word Answer: Yes

Provision and Explanation:

 Provision: Copyright Act, 1957

 Explanation: Under the Copyright Act, 1957, the author of a work has exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute,
and publicly display their work. The unauthorized circulation of a research report, even if done in a legislative
setting, infringes the author's copyright if done without permission.

Procedure to Solve This Problem:

1. Notice of Infringement: The author should first issue a notice of infringement to the party responsible for the
unauthorized circulation, requesting them to cease the infringement and seek damages.

2. Legal Action: If the infringement is not resolved through notice, the author can file a complaint in a court of
law seeking legal remedies. This may include injunctions to stop further unauthorized use and claims for
damages.

3. Evidence Collection: The author should gather evidence of the infringement, including copies of the circulated
report and any related communications.

Referential Case Law:

 Case: Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association (1977)

 Details: This case involved unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted works. The court
emphasized the protection of the author’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.

Conclusion: The author can bring legal action against the unauthorized circulation of their research report under the
Copyright Act, 1957. The rights to reproduce and distribute the work are protected by copyright, and legal remedies
are available to address and rectify the infringement.

5. Z a registered breeder whose registration is cancelled by the authority without giving a reason for cancellation.
Can Z file a case against the authority decide.

One-Word Answer: Yes

Provision and Explanation:

 Provision: Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001

  Explanation: Under the Act, if a registered breeder’s registration is canceled, the authority must provide
reasons for the cancellation. The breeder has the right to appeal or seek judicial review if the cancellation is
done without providing adequate reasons or due process.

Procedure to Solve This Problem:

1. Request for Reason: The breeder (Z) should first request a written explanation from the authority for the
cancellation of registration.

2. Administrative Appeal: If the explanation is unsatisfactory, Z can file an appeal with the relevant appellate
authority or tribunal as prescribed under the Act.

3. Judicial Review: If the administrative appeal does not resolve the issue, Z can file a petition in a court of law
seeking judicial review of the authority's decision, arguing that the decision was made without providing
reasons and thus was arbitrary or unfair.

Referential Case Law:

 Case: K. K. Verma v. Union of India (1974)

 Details: In this case, the court held that administrative decisions affecting rights must be accompanied by
reasons to ensure transparency and fairness. This principle applies to cases of cancellation of registrations or
licenses.

Conclusion: Z can file a case against the authority for canceling their registration without providing reasons. The right
to a reasoned decision is a fundamental aspect of administrative fairness, and Z can seek redress through
administrative appeal or judicial review if proper procedures were not followed.

6. Why company manufactured globes mounted on wooden frames the other manufacturers globes mounted on
gold frames. The structure of the mount remains the same. The other company claims a copyright in the design,
asserting the novelty and design ability of the gold frame. Can the other company get a copyright in the design.

One-Word Answer: No

Provision and Explanation:

 Provision: Copyright Act, 1957

 Explanation: Copyright does not protect designs or functional aspects of an article. Instead, it protects original
literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works. The design of a product, such as a globe mounted on a frame, is
more likely to be protected under design law rather than copyright. The novelty and design ability of the gold
frame might be protected under the Designs Act if it meets the criteria of originality and novelty.

Procedure to Solve This Problem:

1. Check Design Protection: Verify whether the gold frame design qualifies for protection under the Designs Act,
2000. The design should be new and original.

2. Examine Copyright Eligibility: Determine if the design of the gold frame includes any artistic work that could
be eligible for copyright protection. Copyright protection requires originality and artistic merit, which might
not apply to a functional design.

3. Consult Legal Advice: The company should consult with an intellectual property attorney to explore the
appropriate protection under design law if the design itself is being claimed.

Referential Case Law:

 Case: Indian Hotel Company Limited v. R. K. Kothari (2010)

  Details: This case highlighted that copyright protection does not extend to functional designs. The court
distinguished between artistic works eligible for copyright and designs that are more suited for design
protection.

Conclusion: The other company cannot claim copyright protection for the gold frame design. Copyright law does not
cover designs or functional aspects of products. Instead, protection should be sought under the Designs Act if the
design is new and original.

7. A teacher used a copyright musical for teaching music in college. He has not taken permission from the owner of
the copyright. Has he infringed the copyright of the owner of the musical work?

One-Word Answer: Yes

Provision and Explanation:

 Provision: Copyright Act, 1957 (India)

 Explanation: Under the Copyright Act, using a copyrighted musical work for teaching purposes without
permission from the copyright owner constitutes an infringement of the copyright. The Act grants the
copyright owner exclusive rights to reproduce, perform, and use their work. Even educational use requires
appropriate licensing or permission from the copyright holder.

Procedure to Solve This Problem:

1. Assess Copyright Status: Determine if the musical work is still under copyright protection. Copyright generally
lasts for the lifetime of the author plus 60 years.

2. Check for Permissions or Licenses: Review if any licenses or permissions were obtained for using the work in
an educational setting. Some licenses may cover such uses.

3. Seek Legal Advice: Consult with a legal professional to evaluate the infringement and possible remedies, such
as obtaining a license or negotiating a settlement.

Referential Case Law:

 Case: Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Eastern Book Company (2007)

 Details: The case involved unauthorized use of copyrighted musical works and affirmed that such use without
proper authorization constitutes infringement. It emphasized the importance of obtaining permission for any
use of copyrighted works.

Conclusion: The teacher has infringed the copyright of the owner of the musical work by using it for teaching purposes
without obtaining permission. Copyright law requires authorization from the copyright holder for any reproduction or
public performance of the work.

8. A person obtain compulsory license regarding a registered plant warranty, but the breed of fails to provide
necessary needs to the person who obtain the compulsory license. decide. give reasons.

One-Word Answer: Yes

Provision and Explanation:

 Provision: Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (India)

 Explanation: Under Section 84 of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001, a compulsory
license can be granted to ensure the availability of plant varieties to the public. If the breeder fails to provide
the necessary needs, such as seeds or other essential resources, to the person holding the compulsory license,
it constitutes a violation of the obligations under the Act. The breeder is required to comply with the terms set
forth in the compulsory license to ensure that the plant variety is effectively utilized.
Procedure to Solve This Problem:

1. Review License Terms: Examine the terms and conditions of the compulsory license to determine the
obligations of the breeder.

2. Document Non-Compliance: Collect evidence of the breeder's failure to provide necessary needs as specified
in the license.

3. Seek Redressal: File a complaint with the Plant Varieties Protection Authority or the relevant authority to
address the breach of obligations.

4. Legal Action: If necessary, pursue legal action to enforce compliance or seek damages for any losses incurred
due to non-provision.

Referential Case Law:

 Case: The Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority v. M/s. Syngenta India Ltd.
(2008)

 Details: This case involved the enforcement of obligations related to plant variety protection and compulsory
licensing, highlighting the importance of compliance with license terms.

Conclusion: If the breeder fails to meet the requirements of the compulsory license, it is considered a breach of
obligations under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act. Appropriate legal steps should be taken to
ensure compliance or seek remedies for the failure to provide necessary needs.

9. All architect creates a certain design for multistory building. Can the contractor who contract the building claim
copyright in designs.

One-Word Answer: No

Provision and Explanation:

 Provision: Copyright Act, 1957 (India)

 Explanation: According to the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright in architectural designs and works generally vests
with the creator of the design, which is typically the architect who designed the multi-story building. The
contractor who constructs the building does not automatically acquire copyright in the design unless there is
an agreement that explicitly grants such rights. Copyright in architectural designs is granted to the creator of
the design, not to those who merely execute or construct the design.

Procedure to Solve This Problem:

1. Check Agreements: Review any agreements or contracts between the architect and the contractor to
determine if there were any specific terms regarding the transfer of copyright or rights to the design.

2. Assess Ownership: Verify the ownership of copyright in the architectural design, which typically rests with the
architect unless explicitly transferred.

3. Legal Consultation: Consult legal advice if there is a dispute or if the contractor believes they have a claim
based on contract terms or other agreements.

Referential Case Law:

 Case: N.D. Studios Ltd. v. M/s. BPL Ltd. (2011)

 Details: This case highlights the distinction between copyright ownership of architectural designs and the
rights of contractors or builders, emphasizing that copyright in designs generally belongs to the designer.
Conclusion: The contractor who constructs the building cannot claim copyright in the architectural designs unless
there is a specific contractual agreement that transfers such rights. Copyright in architectural works is typically held by
the architect who created the design.

10. A textile manufacturer created a certain design and display them in the showroom can be registered.

One-Word Answer: Yes

Provision and Explanation:

 Provision: Designs Act, 2000 (India)

 Explanation: Under the Designs Act, 2000, a design can be registered if it is new and original and is used in
industrial articles. The Act provides protection for the visual design of objects that are used in commerce,
including textiles. Displaying a design in a showroom does not automatically grant registration, but it makes
the design available for potential registration. The design must meet the requirements of originality and
novelty, and the registration process involves submitting an application to the Controller of Designs, including
the design’s representation and any required documents.

Procedure to Solve This Problem:

1. Verify Design: Ensure that the design is new, original, and has not been previously published or disclosed.

2. Prepare Application: Prepare an application for registration that includes drawings or photographs of the
design and any required forms.

3. Submit Application: Submit the application to the Design Office, including the necessary fee and
documentation.

4. Examination: The application will be examined for compliance with the criteria of novelty and originality.

5. Registration: If the application meets all requirements, the design will be registered, and the manufacturer will
receive a design registration certificate.

Referential Case Law:

 Case: Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. The Controller of Patents and Designs (1999)

 Details: This case emphasizes that for a design to be registered, it must be novel and original, and the
registration will protect the design's visual appearance.

Conclusion: A textile manufacturer can register a design under the Designs Act, 2000, provided the design meets the
criteria of novelty and originality. Displaying the design in a showroom does not affect its eligibility for registration, but
the registration process involves formal application and examination procedures.

11. Balraj and company obtain copyright on representation of Lord Balasubramanian in a form Kanhaiya and
Company Chalons in before the court on the ground that it lacks originality decide.

One-Word Answer: No

Provision and Explanation:

 Provision: Copyright Act, 1957 (India)

 Explanation: Copyright protection is granted to original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works. For a
work to be eligible for copyright, it must be original and exhibit creativity. If Balraj and Company obtained
copyright for a representation of Lord Balasubramanian in a specific form, the originality of the representation
is crucial. If Kanhaiya and Company challenges the copyright on the grounds that the representation lacks
 originality, the court will evaluate whether the representation indeed demonstrates sufficient originality and
creativity.

Procedure to Solve This Problem:

1. Assess Originality: Determine if Balraj and Company’s representation demonstrates originality and creativity.
The standard for originality is that the work must be the result of the author’s skill, judgment, and labor.

2. Examine Copyright: Review the copyright registration to ensure that the work meets the criteria set out under
the Copyright Act, 1957.

3. Legal Challenge: Kanhaiya and Company can challenge the copyright by filing a legal case arguing that the
representation lacks originality.

4. Court Proceedings: During the court proceedings, evidence of the design's originality and any similar existing
works will be examined.

5. Court Decision: The court will decide whether Balraj and Company’s representation qualifies for copyright
protection based on the evidence presented.

Referential Case Law:

 Case: Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008)

 Details: This case reaffirmed that for a work to be protected by copyright, it must show originality and
creativity. The court determined that mere reproduction of existing ideas without original expression cannot
be protected.

Conclusion: Balraj and Company’s copyright on the representation of Lord Balasubramanian could be challenged by
Kanhaiya and Company on the grounds of lack of originality. The court will need to assess whether the representation
exhibits the required level of originality and creativity. If it is found to lack originality, the copyright may be invalidated.

12. The plaintiff and the defendant are engaged in selling of coconut oil using plastic bottle. The plaintiff sees
injunction before the court against the defendant for using of similar cap with more link and a hinge on the cap as
that of the plaintiffs bottle. Against it, the defendant contents that the cap alone does not stand as an article for
sale nor can be described as a part of an article. Decide.

One-Word Answer: No

Provision and Explanation:

 Provision: Designs Act, 2000 (India)

 Explanation: Under the Designs Act, 2000, protection is provided to new and original designs that are applied
to articles and are intended to be sold. The protection typically extends to the entire design of the article, not
just individual components unless they are part of a registered design. For a design to be protected, it must be
applied to the article and be capable of being sold as part of that article. A cap, in isolation, may not be
considered an article of manufacture but rather a component of the overall product (i.e., the plastic bottle).

Procedure to Solve This Problem:

1. Assess Design Registration: Determine if the cap design is registered as part of the overall design of the bottle
or if it is separately registered.

2. Evaluate the Cap’s Role: Check whether the cap is integral to the design of the bottle and if its design qualifies
as part of the registered design.

3. Examine Protection Scope: Verify if the design protection covers individual components or only the complete
article.
 4. Court Examination: The court will review if the design of the cap alone constitutes a protected design or if it is
merely a part of the overall bottle design.

Referential Case Law:

 Case: S. K. Sarawagi & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. C. J. Patel & Co. (1968)

 Details: This case involved the protection of designs applied to articles of manufacture. The court ruled that
protection under design law applies to the overall design of an article rather than individual components
unless they are explicitly protected.

Conclusion: The defendant’s argument is valid if the cap alone does not qualify as an article of manufacture or is not
separately registered as a design. Design protection under the Designs Act, 2000 typically covers the overall design of
an article rather than isolated components, unless such components are explicitly protected. Thus, the court may not
grant an injunction based solely on the design of the cap if it is considered merely a part of the bottle's overall design.

13. The registrar under protection of plant varieties and farmers rights act refuses an application for correction of
the register. Being submitted by the registered reader of the plant variety in oral form. Can such refusal be
challenged?

One-Word Answer: Yes

Provision and Explanation:

 Provision: Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (India)

 Explanation: Under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001, the registrar has specific
duties and procedural requirements for handling applications, including applications for corrections in the
register. Refusal to process such applications, especially if it is done orally, is not in line with the formal
procedures mandated by the Act. Such procedural errors or refusals can be challenged through appropriate
legal channels.

Procedure to Solve This Problem:

1. Review Formal Procedures: Verify the prescribed procedures for submitting applications and handling
corrections under the Act.

2. Check for Written Refusal: Ensure that the refusal was not provided in writing and does not adhere to formal
communication protocols.

3. File a Challenge: The affected party (registered breeder) can challenge the refusal by filing an appeal or
complaint to the appropriate appellate authority or court as prescribed by the Act.

4. Seek Legal Recourse: If necessary, approach the High Court or other competent legal forums for judicial
review of the registrar’s actions.

Referential Case Law:

 Case: Union of India v. Delhi High Court Bar Association (2002)

 Details: This case emphasizes the need for adherence to procedural fairness and the right to challenge
administrative decisions that are made contrary to formal procedures.

Conclusion: The refusal of the registrar to accept an application for correction of the register in oral form, rather than
following the proper written procedures, can be legally challenged. The affected party has the right to appeal against
such decisions and seek redressal through the appropriate legal mechanisms as specified under the Protection of Plant
Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001.