Private entities cannot be compelled by writ jurisdiction unless performing public functions.
Case Title: Ram Chandra Maurya v. Intellectual Property Appellate Board & Ors.
Date of Order: 6th February 2025
Case Number: Writ -C No. 22403 of 2020
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:17425-DB
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Donadi Ramesh
Introduction:The case of Ram Chandra Maurya v. Intellectual Property Appellate Board addresses the interpretational boundaries of Section 6 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner, who claimed copyright ownership over literary works related to the laws of motion, sought to restrain several private entities from allegedly infringing his copyrighted work by manufacturing engines based on his theories.The Allahabad High Court’s decision underscores the limited jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in copyright matters and clarifies the appropriate remedies available for copyright infringement.
Detailed Factual Background:
The petitioner, Ram Chandra Maurya, asserted that he had authored literary works titled:Motion’s Fourth and Fifth Law (registered on 15th May 2017),Motion’s Sixth Law (registered on 1st August 2018).These works were registered with the Registrar of Copyrights and claimed to have scientific applications relevant to engine manufacturing. The petitioner alleged that several private companies were manufacturing engines using his copyrighted literary work without authorization, thereby violating his intellectual property rights.The petitioner initially filed a complaint with the IPAB on 14th June 2018, seeking an order to stop the manufacturing activities allegedly based on his copyrighted material. When the complaint was not acted upon promptly, he approached the Allahabad High Court twice through writ petitions to expedite the process.
Detailed Procedural Background:
1. First Writ Petition (Writ-C No. 33023 of 2018):Filed to compel the IPAB to decide the petitioner’s complaint. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner had approached the Court prematurely without allowing reasonable time for the Board to act.
2. Second Writ Petition (Writ-C No. 1976 of 2019):Filed to seek a direction for the Copyright Board to consider the complaint. The Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation, which the Board was to decide within three weeks.
3. IPAB’s Decision (Order dated 14th September 2020):The IPAB examined the complaint and dismissed it, holding that the dispute did not fall under the purview of Section 6 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
4. Third Writ Petition (Writ-C No. 22403 of 2020):Filed to challenge the IPAB’s decision and seek injunctive relief against the alleged infringers. This petition was dismissed on 6th February 2025.
Issues Involved in the Case:
1. Whether the complaint filed under Section 6 of the Copyright Act was maintainable.
2. Whether the IPAB had correctly applied the statutory provisions while dismissing the complaint.
3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ of mandamus directing private entities to cease alleged infringing activities.
Petitioner’s Submissions (Ram Chandra Maurya):The petitioner argued that his literary works, registered as Motion’s Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Laws, were being exploited without consent.The alleged infringing activities involved manufacturing engines based on his copyrighted theories.The petitioner asserted that the IPAB erred in dismissing his complaint, as the matter pertained to the misuse of copyrighted material.He contended that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court should be invoked to prevent ongoing infringement by private entities.
Legal Provision Cited:Section 6 of the Copyright Act, 1957 – The petitioner claimed that the IPAB had jurisdiction under this section to adjudicate the alleged infringement.
Respondents' Submissions (Intellectual Property Appellate Board & Private Entities):The respondents argued that Section 6 was inapplicable to the petitioner's grievance.They emphasized that the provision only deals with disputes about the date of publication or the term of copyright concerning foreign works.The respondents further submitted that the petitioner’s claim related to alleged infringement, which falls under infringement proceedings in civil courts, not IPAB proceedings under Section 6.Regarding the petitioner’s request for a writ of mandamus, the respondents highlighted that private entities cannot be compelled by writ jurisdiction unless performing public functions.
Legal Provisions Cited:Section 6 of the Copyright Act, 1957 – To argue the limited jurisdiction of the IPAB.Article 226 of the Constitution of India – To assert the non-maintainability of the writ petition against private parties.
Detailed Discussion on Relevant Judgments:
1. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd., (2008) 13 SCC 30
Context: Clarified the jurisdictional boundaries of copyright adjudication.
Relevance: Reinforced the IPAB’s limited jurisdiction under the Copyright Act.
2. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1
Context: Addressed the scope of copyright protection for literary works.
Relevance: Demonstrated that originality is essential but does not automatically confer enforcement jurisdiction under Section 6.
3. Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan, (2005) 6 SCC 657
Context: Examined the applicability of writ jurisdiction to private entities.
Relevance: The Court applied the principle that writs do not lie against private parties absent public functions.
Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of the Judges
1. Interpretation of Section 6 of the Copyright Act:
The Court undertook a textual and purposive interpretation of Section 6, which states:
“If any question arises as to whether a work has been published or as to the date on which a work was published for the purposes of Chapter V, or whether the term of copyright for any work is shorter in any other country than that provided in respect of that work under this Act, it shall be referred to the Commercial Court.”
The judges found that the petitioner’s claim did not raise questions regarding publication dates or foreign copyright terms. Instead, it related to alleged unauthorized use of copyrighted material, which falls outside the section’s scope.
2. Jurisdictional Scope of the IPAB:The Court highlighted that the IPAB’s powers are limited to matters specifically enumerated in the Copyright Act. Since the petitioner sought enforcement of rights rather than determination of publication or duration, the Board’s dismissal was upheld.
3. Misapplication of Writ Jurisdiction:The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally not available against private entities unless public functions are implicated. The petitioner's attempt to restrain private manufacturers via writ proceedings was deemed procedurally improper.
4. Availability of Alternative Remedies:The Court noted that the petitioner failed to pursue available civil remedies for copyright infringement. Civil courts possess jurisdiction over infringement claims and could provide the appropriate relief.
Final Decision of the Court:
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition with the following conclusions:
1. IPAB’s Order Affirmed: The Board's decision to dismiss the complaint was legally sound, as the case did not pertain to issues under Section 6.
2. No Writ Against Private Parties: The petitioner’s request for a writ of mandamus against private companies was rejected.
3. Alternative Remedy Available: The petitioner was advised to seek redress in a civil court if copyright infringement persisted.
Conclusion:The judgment clarifies the jurisdictional limitations of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), particularly concerning Section 6 of the Copyright Act, 1957. It serves as a guiding precedent for copyright owners to direct infringement claims through civil litigation rather than misconceived applications before the IPAB. The decision also reinforces the principle that Article 226 cannot be indiscriminately invoked against private entities unless they perform public functions.
Disclaimer:The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] ,High Court of Delhi
No comments:
Post a Comment