Dealing with an application under S. 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, expunging an entry from the register, the appeal in F.I.I. through Secretary General v. G Kesavalu Naidu [2009 (37) PTC 603]questioned the Copyright registration obtained in steel tubes as artistic works of drawings. F.I.I, a registered society dealing with the interests of its member industries, challenged the two works copyrighted by Naidu. Naidu had not obtained patents on the two designs which varied in diameter, but had duplicated existent designs without any scientific or artistic discovery or invention. It was averred that Naidu was engaged in threatening manufacturers and dealers by misusing the copyright granted by the Registrar. This was substantiated vide F.I.I' submission of a copy of the petition filed by Naidu at the Munsif-cum-Magistrate' Court, indicating that he had been claiming himself to be copyright owner of mild steel tubes of the specific dimensions and in the pursuance had instituted criminal proceedings against other manufacturers.
Countering the allegations, Naidu averred that the monopoly right acquired was a result of continuous effort and research involving skill and labour. Stating that he had applied both for the grant of patent and copyright and that the latter was granted to him, he propounded that the Govt. of Karnataka had appreciated the need and importance of the specific dimensions copyrighted by him. Submitting newspaper clippings, bills and associated pieces of evidence and denied the contention of F.I.I of the designs being registrable under the Designs Act, 200 as incorrect. F.I.I denying the submissions of Naidu stated that the Bureau of Industrial Standards (BIS) had to be complied with by steel manufacturers, and in absence of compliance, a similar characteristic in order to perform the same in the market had to be made, in effect every drawing of a particular kind of steel tube appearing identical.
Further, discussing the representation of the tubes, the Board opined that the two tubes having dimensional differences would be represented alike and that Naidu had failed to issue a notice under the Copyright Rules in spite of having in his knowledge that an industry manufacturing steel tubes was already in operation and that he had an interest in the matter. Several judgments were also cited by either parties. In doing so, the Ciba Judgment was also cited and Naidu averred that F.I.I. did not meet the requirement of being the manufacturer or trader, in effect not being an affected person. F.I.I stated that in view of S. 50 and relevant provisions of the proviso to S. 45 (1) of the Copyright Act, they were aggrieved persons as also attracting Rule 16 (3) of the appended rules.
The Board said that testing the eligibility to continue on the register, the violation of the statutory obligation as under S. 45 (2) could not be ignored, making it mandatory to submit the requisite certificates from the Registrar of Trade Marks and that a reciprocal duty was cast upon the Registrar of Copyrights to demand these. Holding that the registrations had been in violation of specific and unambiguous provisions, the registrations were ordered to be expunged from the Register.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
