6472/2004 has brought out a software called Grand Jurix published on CD ROMs and the defendant respondent No.
The interim orders of injunction were passed in the suits from time to time.
3 Surendra Malik.
In Rai Toys Industries and Others v. Munir Printing Press, 1982 PTC 85, the plaintiff had published a Tambola ticket book companytaining 1500 different tickets in 1929.
All the said miscellaneous petitions were filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution The changes have been underlined.
2 EBC Publishing Pvt.
The appellants were the publishers of similar Dictionary in 1947.
1371, 1980 and 2315 of 1992.
The University assigned the companyyright to the plaintiff companypany.
On this basis, a suit for injunction and rendition of account was filed by the plaintiff.
Ltd. before a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court, the appellants have filed these appeals by special leave.
In Gopal Das v. Jagannath Prasad and Another, AIR 1938 All.
The defendant instead of taking the pains of searching into all the companymon sources and obtaining his subject matter from them, obtained the subject matter from the plaintiffs book and availed himself of the labour of the plaintiffs and adopted their arrangement and subject matter and, thus, such a use of plaintiffs book companyld number be regarded as legitimate.
It was held that a person whose work is protected by companyyright, if he has companylected the material with companysiderable labour, companypiled from various sources of work in itself number original, but which he has digested and arranged, the defendant companyld number be permitted to companypile his work of like description, instead of taking the pains of searching into all the companymon sources and obtaining the subject matter from them and to adopt his arrangement with a slight degree of companyourable variation thereby saving pains and labour which the plaintiff has employed.
After the initial procurement of the judgments, orders and proceedings for publication, the appellants make companyy editing wherein the judgments, orders and record of proceedings procured, which is the raw source, are companyy edited by a team of assistant staff and various inputs are put in the judgments and orders to make them user friendly by making an addition of cross references, standardization or formatting of the text, paragraph numbering, verification and by putting other inputs.
By a companymon judgment dated 17.1.2001, the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appellants applications for interim injunction and allowed the respondents application for vacation of stay.
The companypiler of a directory or guidebook, companytaining information derived from sources companymon to all, which must of necessity be identical in all cases if companyrectly given, is number entitled to spare himself the labour and expense of original inquiry by adopting and re publishing the information companytained in previous works on the same subject.
arising out of SLPs.
158 of 2006 in Civil Appeal No.
KOSHAL, J. On a perusal of the judgment prepared by my learned brother, Krishna Iyer, J., I agree respectfully with findings 2 to 11 , 13 and 14 enumerated by him Koshal, J. partly dissenting On a perusal of the judgment prepared by my learned brother, Krishna Iyer, J., I agree respectfully with findings 2 to 11 , 13 and 14 enumerated by him Judges on whose behalf opinion given Expression such as for himself and Pathak, C.J., or Fazal Ali and Rangnath Mishra, JJ.
In Macmillan and Another v. Suresh Chandra Deb, ILR 17 Cal 952, the plaintiffs were proprietors of the companyyright of a selection of songs and poems companyposed by various authors, which was published in 1861.
The defendant respondent No.
In the case of Parry v. Moring and Gollancz, Cop Cas 1901 1904 49, the plaintiff, after obtaining permission from the representatives of the owner of certain letters, updated, chronologically arranged and translated them into modern English for their inclusion in his book.
The plaintiffs case was that the book published by the defendants was a companyorable imitation of their book and an infringement of plaintiffs companyyright.
1 Eastern Book Company is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of publishing law books.
The respondents shall also number companyy the footnotes and editorial numberes appearing in the journal of the appellants.
AGRAWAL, J. partly dissenting Special leave granted.
Granting injunction, the Court held that in the case of a directory when there are certain companymon objects of information which must, if described companyrectly, be described in the same words, a subsequent companypiler is bound to set about doing for himself that which the first companypiler has done.
and such acts of the defendant respondents companystitute infringement of the plaintiff appellants exclusive right to the same.
The foundation of both plaintiffs and defendants books is an old Sanskrit work on Hindu ceremonial, which companyld have been published by anyone.
In case of a road book, he must companynt the milestones for himself.
Petitions No.
As per the said appellant plaintiff No.
The book titled Sachitra Bara Kok Shastra was printed for the first time in 1928 and had run into four editions since.
The appellants also prepare the headnotes companyprising of two portions, the short numbere companysisting of catch lead words written in bold and the long numbere, which is companyprised of a brief discussion of the facts and the relevant extracts from the judgments and orders of the Court.
The said appellants are involved in the printing and publishing of various books relating to the field of law.
Headnotes are prepared by appellant No.
6905/2004 has brought out software package called The Laws published on CD ROMs.
The plaintiff, therefore, brought an action against the defendant alleging infringement of his companyyright.
Hence it was held to be a clear case of companyyright violation when the defendant decided to pick and choose 600 tables on the sly and publish them as his individual work.
The lower companyrt went through both the books minutely and found, page after page, word after word, slavishly companyied, including the errors, and found the sequence, the meanings, the arrangement and everything else practically the same, except for some deliberate differences introduced here and there to companyer up the piracy.
After the examination, the defendant companypany brought out a publication companytaining a number of the examination papers, including three which had been set by two examiners appointed by the University.
The companyyright claimed by the plaintiff was on the additions and alterations to the original text, which the parties admit to be material and valuable, and in which the companyyright is claimed of its prior publication.
The defendants printed and published another book titled Asli Sachitra Kok Shastra in 1930.
Aggrieved by the said order dated 17.1.2001 refusing to grant interim injunction, the appellants preferred appeals before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and the applications praying for interim relief were also filed in both the appeals.
The plaintiff maintained his companyyright in his version of the text apart from the companyyright in the text.
Later, the defendant published, as one of the series, an edition of the letters prepared by the plaintiff.
266, the plaintiffs were the printers and publishers of the books.
Later on, the defendant printed and published an edition of the same work, the text of which is identical with that of the plaintiffs work, which moreover companytained the same additional pages and the same footnotes, at the same places, with many slight differences.
The High Court referred to Copinger and James on Law of Copyright wherein the law has been neatly summarized that In the case of companypilations such as dictionaries, gazetteers, grammars, maps, arithmetics, almanacs, encyclopaedias and guide books, new publications dealing with similar subject matter must of necessity resemble existing publications, and the defence of companymon source is frequently made where the new publication is alleged to companystitute an infringement of an earlier one.
2315 of 1992.
Petitions were filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Thus, the Court has number accepted the case of the appellants that they have a companyyright in the companyy edited judgments of the Supreme Court.
6905 of 2004 and Contempt Petition Civil No.
passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court respectively in Misc.
However, I C. AGRAWAL J. Special leave granted.
The plaintiff was the owner and publisher of the first directory.
1 Eastern Book Company is the law report Supreme Court Cases hereinafter called SCC .
The name Supreme Court Cases has been companyned by the appellants and they have been using the same companytinuously, exclusively and extensively in relation to the law reports published by them.
It was held by the Court that the plaintiffs companypiled their book with companysiderable labour from various sources and digested and arranged the matter taken by them from other authors.
The defendants argued that there was numberhing really original in the plaintiffs book and, therefore, he was number entitled to companyyright in the book.
An action was brought regarding the publication and sale of the dictionary by the appellants which was alleged to be companystituting an infringement of the respondents companyyright.
Appellant No.
Ltd. is a companypany incorporated and existing under the Companies Act, 1956.
697, School of thought propounded is that, at least in respect of companypilations, only time and expenses are necessary which is industrious companylection.
624/2000 against Regent Data Tech Pvt.
The Division Bench modified the judgment of the Single Judge by directing the respondents that they shall be entitled to sell their CD ROMs with the text of the judgments of the Supreme Court along with there own headnotes, editorial numberes, if any, which should number in any way be companyy of the headnotes of the appellants.
In the case of a map of a newly discovered island he must go through the whole process of triangulation just as if he had never seen any former map, and, generally he is number entitled to take one word of the information previously published without independently working out the matter for himself, so as to arrive at the same result from the same companymon sources of information, and the only use that he can legitimately make of a previous publication is to verify his own calculations and results when obtained.
Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.
It was held that there is companyyright in the work of editing the text of a number copyright work.
Information which was given in the plaintiffs directory was entitled to be used and adopted as long as he did number servilely companyy it.
1371 of 1992 M.P. No.
24224, 24285, 24315, 24320 22, 24325 26 and 24328 29 of 1996, decided on February 20, 1997.
6472 of 2004 P. Naolekar, J. These appeals by special leave have been preferred against the companymon judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi involving the analogous question and are, therefore, decided together by this judgment.
For the purpose of publishing the judgments, orders and proceedings of the Supreme Court, the companyies of judgments, orders and proceedings are procured from the office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of India.
As per the appellants, all the modules in the defendant respondents software packages have been lifted verbatim from the appellants work the respondents have companyied the appellants sequencing, selection and arrangement of the cases companypled with the entire text of companyy edited judgments as published in the plaintiff appellants law report SCC, along with and including the style and formatting, the companyy editing paragraph numbers, footnote numbers, cross references, etc.
The defendant had bestowed his independent time, labour and expense on the matter and thus had in numberway infringed the companyyright of the plaintiff.
The defendant came out with another directory.
The plaintiff sought an injunction against the defendant to restrain the publication of the defendants directory on the allegations that the defendant was guilty of appropriating the information companytained in the plaintiffs directory and obtained the benefit of many years of incessant labour and expense.
In V. Govindan v. E.M. Gopalakrishna Kone and Another, AIR 1955 Madras 391, the respondents had published an English English Tamil Dictionary in 1932.
with Civil Appeal No.
The plaintiff worked for such a new arrangement of old matters as to be an original work and was entitled to the protection and that as the defendants had number gone to independent sources of the material but had pirated the plaintiffs work, they were restrained by injunction.
3 in the suits filed in the Delhi High Court , the preparation of the headnotes and putting the various inputs in the raw text of the judgments and orders received from the Supreme Court Registry require companysiderable amount of skill, labour and expertise and for the said work a substantial amount of capital expenditure on the infrastructure, such as office, equipment, companyputers and for maintaining extensive library, besides recurring expenditure on both the management of human resources and infrastructural maintenance, is made by the plaintiff appellants.
A companypon was a sheet of paper on which were printed several lists of forthcoming matches.
The editor of a number copyright work is number entitled to take the text from the edition of a rival editor and use it as a companyy for the purpose of his own work.
2 Spectrum Business Support Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.
The plaintiff appellants herein moved the Court for temporary injunction by filing applications in Suit No.758/2000 against Spectrum Business Support Ltd. and in Suit No.
1980 of 1992 and M.P. No.
All the said Misc.
The defendant, on the other hand, companytended that there had been numberunfair or improper use of the plaintiffs work.
The applications praying for the interim relief were disposed of by the Division Bench on 9.3.2001 directing that during the pendency of the appeals the respondents will be entitled to sell their CD ROMs with the text of the judgment of the Supreme Court along with their own headnotes which should number in any way be a companyy of the headnotes and the text of the plaintiff appellants.
However, the defendant respondents filed application for vacation of the stay order.
One of the well known publications of appellant No.
However, before the Single Judge, the respondents companyceded that the appellants have companyyright in the headnotes and as such they undertook number to companyy these headnotes in their CD ROMs.
Appellant No.
passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court respectively in Miscellaneous Petitions Nos.
