Showing posts with label Crazy Concepts and Mazes Pvt. Ltd. Vs N.Venkta Yayadri Rao. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Crazy Concepts and Mazes Pvt. Ltd. Vs N.Venkta Yayadri Rao. Show all posts

Monday, June 20, 2022

Crazy Concepts and Mazes Pvt. Ltd. Vs N.Venkta Yayadri Rao

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 09.06.2022
CASE NO: Appeal from Order No.197 of 2017
CASE TITLE: Crazy Concepts and Mazes Pvt. Ltd. Vs N.Venkta Yayadri Rao
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: In the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: Hon'ble Dr. Justice A.P.Thaker

Important Finding in the Decision: 1. The Appellant filed subject matter suit on the basis of copyright in artistic/ literary/ dramatic/ musical works
under the title “SCARY HOUSE and the Trademark SCARY HOUSE. Para 2.2.

2. The case was filed against the Defendants (Defendant No.1 was the ex-employee of the Plaintiff) as the same has
started “TERRIFIC DEVIL ZONE” with substantial and material
reproduction and adaptation of said work of plaintiffs. Para 2.6

3.Injunction was declined by the Ld. Trial Court , against which the present Appeal was filed. Para 1.

4.The Hon'ble Court reiterated the well settled principle of interference in Appellate Jurisdiction.

5.To justify interference, the appellant would have to demonstrate that the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or perversely or where the Court had ignored settled principles of law regarding grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction. Para 5.

6.By virtue of Section 22 of Copyright Act 1957, copyright in relation to published literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works would subsist in the life time of the author and until 60 years from the beginning of calendar year next following the year in which the author dies. Para 7.

8.Adaptation in relation an artistic work includes the conversion of work into a dramatic work by way of performance in public or otherwise. Para 8.

9.The Plaintiff has put on record various documents showing that the work of the Defendants was nothing , but in fact work of the Plaintiff in different name. This factum was also not disputed by the Defendant. Para 8.

10. In view of the above, trial court order was set aside and Appeal was allowed. Para 9.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539

Featured Post

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING IN ORDER TO PROVE THE TRADEMARK  REGISTRA...

My Blog List

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Search This Blog