Overlaping of Section 15 of Copyright Act and Designs Act

CASES

1.    William Grant & Sons Ltd. vs Mcdowell & Compay Ltd. on 27 May, 1994. 
   
     It follows further that in view of the fact that the plaintiff's label is a mark within the meaning of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, Section 15 of the Copyright Act can have no application to the label in question, for the reasons that the same is not an article. The label is permanently affixed on the bottle. It is not sold as an article. Nor is it intended to be sold as anarticle. The sole purpose of the plaintiff's label is to show that the Glenfiddich whisky which is a Single Malt Whisky, which is "Special Old Reserve", is manufactured by William Grant & Sons Ltd., the plaintiff. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that because of section 5 of the Copyright Act, the copyright of the plaintiff in the label would cease to be, once more than 50 impressions of the label are made. 

2.    Fabric designs covered under designs Act (section 15(2) will apply)

As far as the defendants' arguments on the question of the copyright protection in this case, not being available due to provisions of Section 15 of the Act, and provisions of the Designs Act are concerned, it would be appropriate to set out the observations in Microfibres (supra): ‚In India, we have special legislations governing the protection of different nature of rights. Insofar as the industrial designs are concerned, the protection is provided under the Designs Act, 2000, which came into force from May, 2001 and repealed the earlier Designs Act, 1911. An important and relevant aspect is that both under the old Act and the new Act, fabric designs on textile goods have been classified as proper subject matter of IA NO.2352/2008 IN CS (OS) 344/2008 Page 19 design protection by inclusion as a specific class in the Rules framed under the Acts. In the Designs Act of 1911, Classes 13 and 14 of the Fourth Schedule of the Rules dealt with printed or woven designs of textile goods other than checks and stripes and checks and stripes respectively. Such protection is now provided under Class 5 of the new Design Rules of 2001.

3.       However, there can be no quarrel with the plea of Shri Ramachandran that the operation of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act does not exclude from the ambit of Copyright protection either the original "artistic work" upon which the design is based or the design which by itself is an artistic work. It cannot be disputed that the original paintings/artistic works which may be used to industrially produce the designed article would continue to fall within the meaning of the artistic work defined under Section 2(c).

This clearly shows that the legislature intended that even if the artistic work such as a painting has been used as the basis for designing an industrially produced object for commerce, such as the furnishing in the present case, nevertheless the original painting would indeed enjoy full copyright protection, while the result of the industrial application of such painting, namely, the design used in the industrial production of the ultimate product shall enjoy lesser period of protection as stipulated under the Designs Act provided it is registered as a design under the Designs Act. Thus, we are of the view that an original artistic work initially acquires protection under the Copyright Act as an 'artistic work' or else the protection under the Designs Act qua the product created from the artistic work when industrially applied."Servewell Products Pvt Ltd & Anr vs Dolphin on 9 April, 2010

4.       Rajesh Masrani vs Tahiliani Design Pvt. Ltd on 28 November, 2008,

It is alleged that the drawings which are made in the course of developing the garments and accessories by the plaintiff are artistic works under Section 2(c)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The patterns printed or embroidered on the fabric are also artistic works in their own right and are developed by the plaintiff. The garments or accessories themselves are works of artistic craftsmanship under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Act, while the patterns printed or embroidered on the fabric are also artistic works in++ their own right. The Plaintiff does its creative work on computers and claims to be the author under Section 2(d) (vi) of the Copyright Act. The Plaintiff claims to be the first owner of Copyright in all the products of the company under Section 17(c) of the Copyright Act.

It seems to me, going backwards in the order of the claims, that the Plaintiffs must succeed on the ground of infringement of copyright. The Plaintiffs? design was an artistic work within the meaning of the Copyright Act and it has been copied, there is no doubt about it at all. The small differences that have been introduced on behalf of the Defendants do not make any substantial difference: substantially, in the words of Sec. 49 of the Copyright Act, 1956, the Plaintiffs? work has been reproduced on behalf of the Defendants and, therefore, it seems to be quite plain that there has been an infringement of the Plaintiffs? copyright in their picture, which is quite an artistic picture within its limitations, and the Plaintiffs are entitled to succeed on that ground.

26. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the plaintiffs? work is entitled for protection under Section 2(c) of the copyright Act and is an original artistic work. Since the work is an ?artistic work? which is not covered under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act,2000, it is not capable of being registered under the Designs Act and the provisions of Section 15(2) is not applicable.

5. A. F. Products v. A. B. Works, . It was held in this case that a design is

necessarily part and parcel of the article manufactured while a trade mark is necessarily not so. Thus the label to be put on a carton to be used as a container for the goods can never amount to design within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Designs Act. Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 has no application to this case. No such contention is raised in any of the affidavits filed on behalf of the defendant.

The defence raised by the defendants under Section 15 of the Copyright Act has certainly to be considered at the time of trial. That cannot be rejected off-hand as a frivolous ground. Learned Counsel for the appellant attempted to argue that Section 15 of the Copyright Act would apply only to designs on the article itself and not to designs on the package. That is a question of law turning on the interpretation of Section 15 of the Copy Right Act and the provisions of the Designs Act. That is not a matter which can be decided at the interlocutory stage. In fact, we directed learned Counsel for the appellant not to argue the question raised by the defendants under Section 15 of the Copy Right Act.

7. Warner Brothers v. Roadrunner 1988 FSR 292 however, if the intended industrial use of the work was contemporaneous with its coming into existence, Section 15 of the Copyright Act would apply. I may hasten to clarify that it is not suggested that if any design is registered, copyright under no circumstance exist in the drawings. Section 15 lays down that on registration of a design under the Designs Act, the copyright shall not subsist in that design and not in the drawings. Therefore, it is possible that when the moulded plastic article of novel shape is made from a working drawing, as in the instant case, the drawing may qualify as an original work entitled to copyright protection and, at the same time, a registered design for the shape of the article would be protected under the Designs Act. If an unauthorized copy is made of the article, it may constitute an indirect copy of the drawing and therefore may infringe the copyright.

8. So labels cannot be registered as Designs under Designs Act 2000.

There is no need to stick or affix the design to the article. Applying a design to produce an article or a machine means using the design as a model or pattern to be multiplied by an industrial process. A design applicable to a thing for its shape can only be applied to the thing by making it in that shape or pattern. When a design is applied to an article it means that the characteristic features e.g. shape, configuration, lines, etc. are reproduced in conformity with the model design. It is a naive argument submitted by the respondent that application means sticking the paper on which the design is printed. It has no logic and if accepted would make the whole provision namely Section 15(2) nugatory and worthless. Such an interpretation being contrary to all canons of interpretation cannot be adopted. Accurate Transheat Pvt. Ltd. vs Devendra Somabhai Naik on 4 June, 2004