copyright infringement case study in india

Top 5 Copyright Cases of 2019 in India

Top 5 Copyright Cases in 2019

1. sajeev pillai v. venukunnapalli & anr.

Does the author of work, even after the assignment of work, have special rights to claim authorship of his work provided under Section 57(1) of the Copyright Act?

The appellant, Sajeev Pillai, a film director, and a scriptwriter, claimed to have researched the history of the grand festival Mamankam and prepared a script for a movie based on the same epic. He met VenuKunnapalli and signed an MoU with Kavya Film Company which was associated with Kunnapalli. Sajeev was initially appointed as the director, but his service was terminated and replaced by someone else. The movie’s shooting was after that completed, which Sajeev alleged was done by mutilating, distorting, and modifying his script. Sajeev, in light of that, filed a suit seeking various reliefs. An interim injunction application was filed to restrain the respondents from releasing, publishing, distributing, and exploiting the film and issuing pre-release publicity without providing good authorship credits to Pillai as per film industry standards.

In deciding the issue, the Court noted that the first sub-section of Section 57(1) provides the author to restrain third parties. The second sub-section provides the author the entitlement to claim damages by such a third party for any distortion, mutilation, or other modifications to his work or any other action that would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. This provided the appellant an unparalleled advantage in the case and that his copyright assignment of the work would not exhaust the legal right to claim authorship over it.

2. Tips Industries v Wynk Music

Does a statutory licensing scheme exist under the Copyright Act for online streaming services?

Background: The dispute centers around section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957, which provides for a statutory licensing scheme, whereby any ‘broadcasting organization’ desirous of ‘communicating to the public’ any sound recording can obtain a statutory license to do so provided they pay royalty rates to the copyright owners at rates fixed by the Intellectual Property Law Board.

Tips Industries Ltd (Plaintiff) is an Indian music label that exercises copyright over a significant music repository that, in 2016, granted Wynk Music Ltd (Defendant) a license to access this music repository. At the expiry of the said license, both parties attempted to renegotiate the licensing conditions. Still, they failed to do so; hence, Wynk took refuge by invoking Section 31D of the Copyright Act. Tips challenged Wynk’s invocation of Section 31D and prosecuted Wynk according to Section 14(1)(e) for breach of their exclusive sound recording rights.

After hearing the contentions of both parties, the Bombay High Court found Wynk guilty of direct infringement on two counts – 1. To offer the copyrighted work under section 14(1) (e) (ii), which allowed the users to download and listen to the plaintiff’s work offline, and 2. Under section 14(1) (e) (iii) for communicating the plaintiff’s works to the users via their streaming service.

In addition to that, the Bombay High Court sought this opportunity to clear out the air regarding the ambiguity that existed concerning online streaming services falling within the scope of Section 31D:

1. Under Section 31D of the Copyright Act, the’ Download / Purchase ‘ of copyrighted works is not covered.

Wynk Music allowed the users to download and store copyrighted music for unlimited future use, which is instituted to be a ‘sale’ and not ‘communication made to the public,’ which constitutes a ‘broadcast’ for Section 31D. Hence, there is no claim for a statutory license for using such copyrighted work by Wynk Music.

2. The application of Section 31D of the Copyright Act does not include Internet broadcasting.

The defendant’s case was based primarily on the presumption that Section 31D covered Internet streaming services under’ radio broadcasting’ as described in a 2016 DPIIT office circular, given that’ radio broadcasting’ included’ internet broadcasting’ under Section 31D.

The Court had an opposing view which resulted in the rejection of the interpretation put forth by the defendant.

The Court found Section 31D to be an exception to copyright, which should only be strictly interpreted. Upon careful examination of the statutory scheme of 31D and the rules accompanying it, it becomes apparent that statutory licensing was intended only to cover radio and television broadcasting and not internet broadcasting. After examining the history associated with Section 31D, the Court derived that, despite the global existence of internet streaming services when the Section was inserted through an Amendment Act of 2012, the legislation, even though aware of it, omitted to include internet streaming services from the ambit of Section 31D.

In addition, the memorandum presented by the defendant does not contain any additional weightage of their claim as a memorandum only acts as ‘guidelines’ and lacks statutory authority and therefore has no influence to the extent of their claim.

The judgment was passed in favor of the plaintiff, and the Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to an interim injunction, having regard to the reality that they had made a prima facie case, and would suffer irreparable harm in the way of lost revenue.

3. Raj Rewal v Union of India &Ors

Whether an Architect, as the creator and legally the ‘author’ of a structure, has a right vested in him to object to such modification or demolition of their work by the owner of the building?

Background: The dispute centers around section 57 of the Copyright Act 1957, under which the plaintiff has filed for a mandatory injunction to reinstate the building according to the original plans. Section 57 of the Copyright Act 1957 provides the author with special rights called ‘moral rights,’ which exists with the author of the work over and above the economic rights of others.

The present case concerns Mr. Raj Rewal, who designed and Mr. Mahendra Raj, who was the structural designer of the Hall of Nations building. The said building was hailed as an icon of modernist Indian architecture and was erected on the Pragati Maidan grounds in New Delhi. The ITPO, in 2016, proposed to demolish the Hall of Nations complex to build an ‘Integrated Exhibition cum Convention Centre.’ Despite several attempts made by Plaintiff to protect the building from demolition, it resulted in what ITPO desired. Post demolition of the building, Plaintiff instituted a suit against the actions of ITPO by claiming that the acts of demolition had derogated Plaintiff’s special rights under Section 57.

Rejecting the plaintiff’s claims, the Court framed the issue as a conflict of two different rights: the architect’s rights under Section 57 and the landowner’s rights to practice acts about their property.

The Court observed that the plaintiff, in this case, cannot be allowed to prevent the demolition of the building by the defendant as it would, in turn, amount to a restriction of the defendant’s right to practice their control over their property and land which is provided to them under Article 300A which is a constitutional right which prevails over the statutory rights of the plaintiff which they claim to exist under Section 57 of Copyright Act, 1957.

The Court further states that the author’s right under Section 57 to prohibit ‘distortion, mutilation or modification of his work does not permit an author to prevent the destruction of their work since “that what cannot be viewed, seen, heard or felt, cannot be imperfect and cannot affect the honor or reputation of the author.”

Therefore, the extent to which the right vested in the architect extends is to prevent the building owner from refraining from making changes in the design made by the architect and passing it off as if the architect made the design.

Further, the Court also relied upon Section 52(1)(x), an exception to the architect’s copyright. The Court reasoned that the ‘reconstruction’ envisaged under Section 52(1)(x) could only occur if the building had already been demolished. Noting that the Copyright Act must be read harmoniously, the Court stated that Section 57 could not reasonably contemplate the right to object to demolishing a building.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the suit due to a lack of cause of action against the demolition of the Hall of Nations.

4. YRF v Sri Sai Ganesh Productions

Whether copyright can exist in a cinematography film independent of the underlying works that it is comprised of? 2. Does the expression under section 14 to ‘make a copy of the film’ mean making a physical copy only? And between the two films, is there a substantial and material similarity?

A copyright infringement suit was filed against Sri Sai Ganesh Productions &Ors by Yash Raj Films Pvt Ltd on the grounds that it blatantly copied the movie Band Baja Baarat produced under the YRF banner and producing Jabardasht which showcased substantial and material similarities in terms of theme, concept, plot, character, sketches, story, script, form and expression amongst other things.

The Court, while determining the first issue, relied on the judgment handed down by the Delhi High Court in the case of MRF Limited v. Metro Tyres Ltd, in which the Court held that copyright exists in the ‘cinematographic film’ independent from other underlying works that come together to constitute it and that there is a requirement of originality to exist in ‘cinematographic films’ which can be read into from Section 13(1)(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957 through Sections 13(3)(a) and 2(d) of the said Act even though it has not been explicitly mentioned.

The Court, while determining the second issue, held that the expression ‘to make a copy of the film’ provided in Section 14(d)(i) of the said Act does not simply mean creating a physical copy of the film by process of duplication. Furthermore, as the movie are protected just like original works , the Court extended the test of originality set out in the case of R.G Anand v. Deluxe Films to distinguish between the two films based on ‘substance, foundation, and kernal’ and understand the viewpoint of an average moviegoer as to whether they would have an unmistakable impression that one work was a copy of the other.

In the instant case, the Court found that the defendants had blatantly copied the plaintiff’s film’s fundamental, essential, and distinctive features.

5. UTV Software Communication Ltd., v.1337X.TO and Ors

How should the Court deal with the hydra-headed ‘Rogue Websites’ which, on being blocked, eventually multiply and resurface as redirect or mirror or alphanumeric websites?

UTV Software Communications Ltd (Plaintiff)., is one such company engaged in creating, producing, and distributing cinematographic content worldwide. The plaintiff has brought a suit against thirty identified websites , multiple John Doe defendants, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Dept of Telecom, and various ISPs. The plaintiff’s contention was based on the fact that the defendant’s websites host and provide access to their copyrighted content which infringes their rights derived from the Copyright Act 1957.

The plaintiffs provided access to a sample of such infringing content as evidence that the websites were primarily engaging in online piracy. Most websites did not respond to the summons because they were hosted outside India. Due to that, an amicus curia was appointed in their place as the issue was about to be a question of law of general public importance.

The most notable contribution this case made was that it introduced a new procedure to extend website blocking injunctions beyond those specified in the court order but also to those websites which are ‘mirror/alphanumeric/redirect’ websites created after the Court already passed the injunction order. This extension was termed a ‘dynamic injunction.’ Singapore High Court’s decision in Disney v M1 was referred by the High Court of Delhi while deciding on the issue where their Court introduced the concept of ‘dynamic injunction’ whereby a plaintiff could file an additional affidavit stating to the Court why a new website fell within the purview of an existing blocking order and forwarding the same to an ISP, which could dispute the merits of the blocking order. This process would help curtail piracy by such ‘Rogue Websites’ and reduce the burden on the copyright owners to go through the challenging route of litigation over and again.

Most Viewed Posts

• Patent Filing Procedure and Process in India – An Exclusive Guide
• 5 Step Trademark Registration Process in India
• What is Trademark and Types of Trademarks
• Understand Trademark Application Status [The Definitive Guide]
• Trademark Certificate in India

Recent Posts

Get in touch, related posts.

In today’s digital age, the surge in content streaming has dramatically altered how we consume media by offering ease of…

Introduction The New York Times, one of the most respected news organizations, has taken legal action against OpenAI and Microsoft,…

Introduction With the explosion of the internet in the early 2000s, dissemination of information is easier, all the more convenient,…

Copyright piracy and cybercrime: enforcement challenges in India

By Arpan Banerjee and Neil Gane , Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), Hong Kong (SAR), China

In recent years, concerns around online content piracy have increased around the world. The reasons are well-known: a rise in illicit streaming platforms and torrent websites; errant web hosting services that ignore piracy on their servers; and the ease and anonymity offered by certain online intermediaries. A further hazard arises from linkages between piracy and hi-tech cybercrimes. While governments worldwide are grappling with these obstacles, a country that merits special attention is India — where a globally prominent film industry is hindered by widespread piracy and a challenging enforcement environment.

The Piracy-Cybercrime Nexus

In 2010, the Indian government’s Committee on Piracy (CoP) linked piracy with large revenue and job losses. The CoP presciently observed that the advent of smartphones and 3G would make it “much easier to undertake all kinds of film piracy.” Indeed, today, premium streaming services in India are routinely victims of mass piracy. Like in other countries, piracy syndicates in India profit mostly through user subscription fees or advertising revenues. The former method, though brazen, is self-explanatory. The latter method, however, is more insidious, owing to the presence of high-risk advertisers promoting suspicious links. Research, by McAfee , tracking pirated Indian movies and shows, has flagged such links for attempting “to install malware or steal passwords and personal information.”

For further insights, we interviewed Lieutenant-General Rajesh Pant, a noted military cybersecurity veteran now advising the Indian government as National Cyber Security Coordinator (NCSC). Pant explained: “Malware is the starting point of all our cyberattacks, whether it is financial fraud, piracy, data theft or an attack against a strategic sector. Everything starts with luring or clickbaiting.”

Pant listed some recent government initiatives meant to address the threat, including a National Malware Repository and the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C). Notably, the I4C includes a National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal , where cases of piracy — with or without a malware nexus — may be reported. Pant added that piracy and malware attacks were separately punishable under the Copyright Act 1957 and the Information Technology Act 2000.

Criminal Enforcement

Despite the impressive expertise of the NCSC and I4C, India’s federal make-up means that the responsibility to investigate piracy generally lies with state governments. Thus, the success of anti-piracy enforcement in India is often determined by subnational rather than national efforts. Here, the CoP had observed that piracy is “very low in terms of priority in the radar of law enforcement agencies.” Similarly, the International Intellectual Property Alliance has reiterated that criminal enforcement in India is “very daunting” , and marked by “lack of appetite by local enforcement and significant time delays” .

Pursuing pirates outside major cities appears to be particularly challenging. For example, we examined the records of a high-profile piracy case in the city of Jabalpur ( Rahul Mehta v State of Madhya Pradesh (2015) ). In 2015, the Jabalpur police had arrested a piracy syndicate responsible for pirating Baahubali , one of the highest grossing Indian movies of all time. The accused were granted bail by the trial court. However, the case is still pending and there is no record of a hearing after 2017. Gallingly, the accused were arrested again , in Hyderabad, for pirating Baahubali 2 , the film’s equally successful sequel. While in the recent case of Knit Pro International v State of Delhi (2022), the Indian Supreme Court declared criminal copyright infringement as a “non-bailable” and “cognizable” offence (i.e. one is arrestable without warrant and only a court can grant bail), the ground-level impact of the decision is unclear.

Many right holders see the benefits of using criminal prosecutions as deterrents.

The MIPCU Model

At the state level, a novel enforcement model exists in the form of a police unit in the state of Maharashtra (whose capital, Mumbai, is the hub of Bollywood). The Maharashtra government established the Maharashtra Intellectual Property Crime Unit (MIPCU) in 2017 to provide right holders better enforcement.

The MIPCU was established as a division of Maharashtra Cyber, the state police’s cybercrime wing, and structured as a public-private partnership. To learn more, we visited the office of Maharashtra Cyber and met with the officers currently at the helm: Yashasvi Yadav, Special Inspector General of Police, and Sanjay Shintre, Superintendent of Police. We also met with a team of computer professionals, who make up the MIPCU’s engine room, and interviewed them via a written questionnaire (which they preferred to answer collectively, as “Team MIPCU”).

Yadav acknowledged that piracy was “rampant” in India. He also confirmed linkages between piracy and malware, stating: “Certain malware providers use pirated content as a trap. Their main business is not piracy. Their main intention is to infect computers, steal data or install spyware. People are prone to click on freeware and free content.” Yadav added that it was “not an easy task” to track down such malicious actors, who frequently masked their footprints using technologies like VPN and Tor browsers.

Shintre, however, pointed out that cybercriminals did occasionally slip up. He cited the 2021 case of ThopTV, a popular piracy app funded by subscription fees. Apparently, ThopTV’s mastermind had inadvertently disclosed his whereabouts, allowing Maharashtra Cyber to swoop in and arrest him. Interestingly, the arrest had occurred outside Maharashtra, in Hyderabad. In May 2022, an accomplice was arrested by Maharashtra Cyber near Kolkata. Yadav and Shintre explained that Maharashtra Cyber could pursue pirates outside Maharashtra if pirated content was being disseminated within Maharashtra. Such a move, however, is contingent on registering a “First Information Report” (FIR) in Maharashtra. In other words, such action can only take place when a copyright owner files a criminal complaint, after which the police prepare a report.  The onus of filing the complaint lies on the copyright owner.

Despite potential advantages, the MIPCU does have limitations. For a start, the MIPCU cannot directly shut down piracy websites or apps. Such action is the administrative remit of the Indian Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY). Further, Team MIPCU’s responses to our questionnaire indicate that the unit relies heavily on voluntary compliance. In this regard, Team MIPCU listed many difficulties, ranging from non-compliant hosting services in “rogue geographies” outside India to “members-only” piracy platforms hidden from public view.

Other limitations raised include sluggish takedown times over weekends, with some mobile apps taking up to two weeks to act. Moreover, Yadav noted that despite the ubiquity of online piracy, right holders were not registering enough FIRs with Maharashtra Cyber. “I have not seen more than a handful,” he remarked. Yadav felt that this limited the police’s ability to escalate matters.

Many right holders, however, do see the benefits of using criminal prosecutions as deterrents. In a separate interview, Anil Lale, General Counsel of Viacom 18, informed us that Viacom 18 had filed multiple complaints with Maharashtra Cyber, including the FIR in the ThopTV case (for which Lale praised the MIPCU’s “commendable action).”

Lale declined to comment on the strategies of other content media companies, but offered some suggestions as to why the number of FIRs may be low. He pointed to systemic problems with the legal system and law enforcement, the difficulty in prosecuting overseas-based pirates, and the tendency of many right holders to prioritize (understandably) the removal of pirated content over the prosecution of offenders. Lale also felt that, insofar as it is a state-level body, the MIPCU had inherently limited powers and resources. Given these drawbacks, he suggested that the establishment of a larger, national body empowered to receive and investigate complaints from across India might be more effective.

The battle against online piracy in India (and beyond) is […] weighed down by universal and local challenges.

Civil Enforcement

On the civil litigation front, the situation in India appears brighter. Many states in India have set up fast-track courts, and the Delhi High Court has recently established an Intellectual Property Division. The Delhi High Court’s approach towards online film piracy (expertly summarized by Justice Pratibha Singh of the Intellectual Property Division in a recent WIPO presentation [ PDF ] ) has been especially noteworthy. In the leading case of UTV Software Communications Ltd. v 1337X.to (2019) , the court recognized “dynamic” injunctions (to preempt pages from shifting across different URLs) and specified criteria to determine when to block “rogue websites” (i.e. websites that "primarily or predominantly share infringing content).” Pant explained that MEITY officials meet regularly among themselves and with intermediaries to implement such blocking orders. The MEITY instructs the Department of Telecommunications to inform ISPs to carry out the blocking of an IP address, which he notes can be done in “a matter of minutes.”  More recently, the Delhi High Court, in Neetu Singh v Telegram (2022), directed Telegram to disclose information about uploaders of pirated content.

However, by the time a court order is passed, and finally executed, the proliferation of pirated content may have already occurred. This shortcoming (which is not peculiar to India) is especially relevant for pirated streams of live entertainment and sports events. Legal costs, which may be prohibitively expensive for smaller outfits, present another major hurdle in the civil litigation process.

The Way Ahead

The battle against online piracy in India (and beyond) is evidently weighed down by universal and local challenges. The universal challenges range from the technological sophistication of cybercriminals to problems of international jurisdiction. The local challenges, however, chiefly encompass systemic problems with law enforcement agencies and the criminal justice system. Realistically, it is perhaps only the latter issue that the Indian government can address.

The CoP has observed that piracy is inappropriately viewed as “a low-risk high-reward” crime in India, with law enforcement agencies challenged with tackling “heinous criminal activities.” However, if the linkages between piracy and malware are better highlighted ¾ through research studies, symposiums, and police training workshops ¾ piracy should automatically rise in the pecking order of serious crimes and receive greater attention. This task could plausibly be undertaken by the Cell for IPR Promotion and Management (CIPAM), a training and awareness cell launched by the Indian government in 2016. CIPAM’s website shows that it has organized several educational workshops and involved leading Bollywood stars in an anti-piracy campaign.

Finally, many state governments may consider setting up their own IP cybercrime units. Operated in a targeted and cost-effective manner, such units would likely attract the endorsement and support of industry. In prioritizing the certainty of punishment over its severity, these units would also, no doubt, offer a service that most right holders would like to see in place.

The WIPO Magazine is intended to help broaden public understanding of intellectual property and of WIPO’s work, and is not an official document of WIPO. The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WIPO concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. This publication is not intended to reflect the views of the Member States or the WIPO Secretariat. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by WIPO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

• Send a comment on this article
• Back to Contents page

Infringement Cases Of Copyright In India

Understand copyright infringement cases in India, examining legal proceedings, penalties, and impactful judgments that define intellectual property protection.

Table of Contents

Introduction

The fabrication of a form of intellectual property work without the authorization of the copyright holders is known as a copyright infringement cases. Copyright violation occurs when a 3rd party violates the copyright owner’s rights, like individual ownership of work for a specific period. Music and films are well-known entertainment products subject to severe copyright infringement. Violation lawsuits might result in future liabilities or funds set aside in the event of a lawsuit.

Individuals and businesses who create new compositions and apply for copyright registration , do so to guarantee that their contributions are rewarded. Other organizations may be approved to use those works through license agreements or buy them from the copyright owner; nonetheless, several factors may result in copyright violation on the part of other parties.

A high price for the permitted work or an absence of availability to a supplier of the authorised work is among the reasons.

Instances Where Copyright Infringement Occurs

copyright infringement occurs in various instances when someone uses, reproduces, or distributes copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright owner. Here are common instances:

Unauthorised Copying

Reproducing, photocopying, or duplicating copyrighted content without permission.

Illegally distributing or selling copyrighted material, such as movies, music, or software.

Presenting someone else’s work as one’s own, without proper attribution or permission.

Online Sharing

Sharing copyrighted material on online platforms without authorisation, including social media, websites, or file-sharing networks.

Adaptation or Derivative Works

Creating adaptations, remixes, or derivative works without permission from the original copyright owner.

Performing Rights Violation

Performing copyrighted works publicly without obtaining the necessary licenses or permissions.

Commercial Use without Permission

Using copyrighted material for commercial purposes without obtaining proper licensing or permission.

Digital Reproduction

Unauthorised reproduction or distribution of digital content, including e-books, software, or digital artwork.

Unauthorised Translation

Translating copyrighted works without the copyright owner’s permission.

Rebroadcasting

Broadcasting or streaming copyrighted content without proper authorisation.

Artwork Reproduction

Reproducing visual art, photographs, or illustrations without the artist’s permission.

Educational Use without Fair Use

Using copyrighted material in educational settings without qualifying for fair use or obtaining the necessary licenses.

Failure to Attribute

Not providing proper attribution or credit to the original creator when using their copyrighted work.

Using Copyrighted Software Illegally

Using software without adhering to licensing agreements, such as using unauthorised copies or distributing software without permission.

Public Display

Displaying copyrighted material in public without proper authorisation.

Architectural Works

Copying or reproducing architectural designs without permission.

Fashion Design Infringement

Copying or replicating unique and original fashion designs without permission.

Copyright Infringement Examples

Yrf vs sri sai ganesh productions.

YRF initiated a copyright infringement lawsuit against Sri Sai Ganesh Productions, alleging that their movie ‘Jabardasht’ copied essential elements from YRF’s ‘Band Baaja Baaraat.’ The court applied a test of originality, focusing on foundational aspects, substance, and kernel to determine if an average viewer would perceive one work as a copy of the other. The court found that Sri Sai Ganesh Productions had blatantly replicated YRF’s film, leading to a verdict of copyright infringement.

Hawkins Cooker Ltd. vs Magicook Appliances

Hawkins Cooker Ltd. filed a lawsuit against Magicook Appliances for unlawfully utilising their copyrighted label on the popular pressure cooker line. The court prohibited Magicook Appliances from using Hawkins Cooker Ltd’s cookbooks and mandated compensation for damages related to the alleged unauthorised use of books, products, and articles in the production of the infringing goods.

Super Cassettes Industries Limited vs YouTube and Google

Super Cassettes Industries Limited (SCIL) asserted that YouTube’s business model profits significantly from the unauthorised use of copyrighted works without approval or royalty payment. The court directed YouTube and Google to cease the distribution, reproduction, display, or transmission of any audio-visual works exclusively owned by SCIL on their platform.

Ratna Sagar (P) Ltd. V. Trisea Publications & Ors., 1996 Ptc (16) 597 

In the legal matter of Ratna Sagar (P) Ltd. versus Trisea Publications & Ors. (1996 Ptc (16) 597), the examination centred on the safeguards for copyright protection as per Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. It emphasised the necessity of safeguarding the prior publication of the work. The court deemed the party’s right to the work, based on the author’s assignment, irrelevant at this point. Consequently, the court issued an injunction to prevent copyright infringement under Sections 14 and 19 of the Act.

Star India (P) Ltd. V. Piyush Agarwal & Ors, C.S. (O.S.) No. 2722/2012, Del Hc 

Star India Pvt. Ltd. (STAR) initiated legal actions against Piyush Agarwal (Cricbuzz), Idea Cellular (IDEA), and OnMobile Global Ltd. (ONMOBILE). Despite the Board of Cricket Control in India (BCCI) being named as a common defendant, it is supporting STAR, asserting primary rights over all information from cricket events due to its role in organising and promoting cricket in India. STAR and BCCI argue that, through an agreement on 10.08.2012, BCCI exclusively assigned a set of rights, including sMobile Rights and sMobile Activation Rights, to STAR. STAR alleges a violation of these rights by the defendants and seeks an interim injunction.

Najma Heptulla V. Orient Longman Ltd., Air 1989 Del 63

This case pertains to obtaining a temporary injunction under Order 39 for the publication of books. The plaintiff asserts her status as the legal heir of Maulana Azad, the book’s author, and has initiated legal action seeking an account rendition and injunction. The primary relief is sought against Orient Longman Limited, a publishing company, and Professor Humayun Kabir, a close associate of Maulana Azad.

Eastern Book Company & Others V. D.B. Modak & Another, Air 2008 Sc 809 

Eastern Book Company, a partnership, and EBC Publishing Private Limited were involved in publishing legal books, including ‘Supreme Court Cases’ (SCC) since 1969. This compilation comprised non-reportable, reportable, and short judgments of the Supreme Court, enriched with user-friendly elements like formatting, numbering, cross-references, and additional contributions. It featured headnotes, footnotes, and long notes. In 2004, Spectrum Business Support Limited (Respondent-1) and Regent Datatech Private Limited (Respondent-2) released ‘Grand Jurix’ and ‘The Laws’ software, respectively, allegedly copying the entire SCC module onto CD-ROMs, leading to accusations of IP rights infringement by the appellants.

The Chancellor, Master and Scholars of the University Of Oxford & Ors. V. Rameshwari Photocopying Services and Anr., Cs (Os) 2439/2012 

In 2012, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press (UK), and Taylor & Francis Group (UK), along with Cambridge University Press India Pvt. Ltd. and Taylor & Francis Books India Pvt. Ltd., initiated a legal action for copyright infringement against Rameshwari Photocopy Service and the University of Delhi in the Delhi High Court. The lawsuit gained significant backing from students, professors, and activists who rallied in support of Rameshwari Services. Several petitions were submitted to join the defense, with entities like the Association of Students for Equitable Access to Knowledge (ASEAK) and the Society for Promoting Educational Access and Knowledge (SPEAK) seeking inclusion as defendants. Consequently, they were formally included as defendant number three and four in the case.

Sajeev Pillai v. VenuKunnapalli & Anr 

In this case, Sajeev Pillai, a film director and scriptwriter, researched the historical festival ‘Mamankam’ and wrote a script for a film. He signed an MoU with Kavya Film Company to produce the film. However, after two shooting schedules, he was replaced as the director. Pillai alleged that the script was altered, leading him to file a civil suit seeking various reliefs. He also filed an interim injunction application to prevent the film’s release without proper authorship credits. The District Judge denied the injunction, prompting Pillai to appeal to the Kerala High Court, which issued its order a day before the scheduled movie release.

UTV Software Communication Ltd., v.1337X.TO and Ors

In a unilateral decision, the Delhi High Court issued a groundbreaking dynamic injunction in India, allowing the injunction holder to utilise a single court order to block websites hosting infringing content, eliminating the need for separate suits for each instance of infringement. This ruling emerged from a case seeking an injunction against ‘rogue websites’ disseminating pirated versions of cinematograph films. The court found these websites culpable of hosting copyright-infringing material, denying them exemptions under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, and the safe harbour principle for intermediaries under the Information Technology Act, 2000. Additionally, the court directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeITY) and the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to consider formulating a technically feasible policy to issue warnings to viewers engaging in content infringement. Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 addresses intermediary liability and provides safe harbour exemptions.

Three Crucial Copyright Infringement Cases in India

Sarla a. saraogi & ors vs. krishna kishore singh .

The New Delhi High Court declined to impose an interlocutory order against the distribution and broadcast of cinematograph films copyright supposedly relating to SSR (Sushant Singh Rajput) because SSR’s parents failed to establish prima facie evidence, and the ratio of advantage was in favor of the respondents. ‘NYAY The Law,’ ‘Suicide or Death,’ and ‘Roughly in the middle,’ according to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, must be inducted and prohibited from being disclosed, printed, and conveyed to the world. The Complainant claimed violations of publicity and security rights and the right to due process, slander, and infringement of the Indian Constitution’s Article 21.

The Complainant struggled to create a legitimate argument for copyright infringement of SSR’s famous person or licensing because the Claimant was unaware of the subject matter of the movies, the plaintiffs were not taking SSR’s appearance, similarities, or title, and the movies had suitable provisos, the Court concluded after evaluating the facts and findings further showed. It further stated that famous rights may cease to exist after the demise of the star and that plaintiffs may use information from the official information without responsibility. Finally, the Court concluded that a libel claim is hypothetical with no access to the offensive content.

The Court further stated that no breach of the legal right to a fair trial might be considered a result of news or film coverage. It continued to say that when it comes to material that is part of the public domain, freedom of speech and expression takes precedence over Article 21. While rejecting the order, the Court requested the plaintiffs provide accounts to reimburse any losses.

Spartan Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd. Anr. Vs. Dassault System Solidworks Corporation & Anr. 

The Delhi High Court addressed the problem of software copyright infringement in this judgment. Defendant No. 1 is a French firm that created the program ‘Solidworks.’ This program makes it easier to model and build goods in a 3D setting. Defendant no.2 is a sister corporation founded by Defendant no.1 to handle all of Defendant no.1’s business in India.

Defendants No. 1 and 2 (“Defendants”) claim that the program was created as a job for pay by their workers and that the Petitioners own the copyright. The Defendants argue that the software package and its accompanying training materials are copyright literary work by the Act of 1957 (Act). Because the United States and India are both signatories of the Convention in Berne, the World Trade Organization’s Agreement, and the Universal Copyright Convention, India’s program is protected in Section 40 of the Copyright Act on trade-related. (latestphonezone.com)

Plaintiff argued that they acquired evidence in May 2018 about the Respondents’ commercial usage of copied and unlicensed part of the ‘Modelling’ software application without completing the requisite license cost. The Consumers further claimed that improper usage of the program had escalated since August 2020 and that all attempts to achieve a settlement were unsuccessful because the Defendants denied violation.

With this, the Defendants granted an order from the Court, claiming that using a counterfeit or unauthorised version of the Defendants’ computer program would constitute copyright violations under Section 51 of the Copyright Act. The Defendants also invoked Section 63B of the Act, making it illegal to intentionally use a stolen software program. Furthermore, Plaintiff contended that the Defendants’ breach of the synchronization license agreement  resulted in commercial and intellectual property violations.

“Software duplication is a serious matter that requires to be addressed in the bud,” the judge said in granting the decision. Accordingly, the Petitioners were given a close substitute ex-parte injunctive relief prohibiting the Plaintiffs from using, replicating, or disseminating any illegally downloaded, non-licensed, or unapproved software packages governed by the Complainants, and also typesetting their computer networks and trying to erase any data related to aiding others in infringing the Complainants’ copyright.

Shalini Kalra & Ors. Vs. Muthoot Finance Limited

Muthoot Finance Limited, a non-banking economical organization, offered commercial and personal financing in this case in exchange for gold jewelry deposits. As a result, the Complainant had to keep confidential and proprietary data about its vast client form in the shape of a dataset as part of the company, which formed a “work of literature” under Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and also added up to Defendant’s proprietary information that should not be divulged to any 3rd person.

The Claimant’s former workers were Respondents Nos. 1 through 4. Each will have stated nonagreement and a delegation of loyalty when they started working for the company. The central claim in the party was that during the scope of employment, Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 4 had unpermitted and illegally copied, derived, replicated, and later transferred the sensitive data of the Complainant’s clients to Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and also the staff of Plaintiff No. 5, a company that supplies similar programs to the Claimant.

As a result, Plaintiff’s consumer base began to shift to Respondent No.5. Defendants 1 and 3 ended up joining the employment of Defendant 5 after being fired by Plaintiff. Angry, the Claimant filed the complaint with the Joint Superintendent of Police, Crime Division, New Delhi, against Defendants 1 to 5. Nevertheless, there were comparable instances of secret information being disclosed at several other Plaintiff offices, resulting in Defendant losing approx 9 cr. Rupees.

As a result, Plaintiff filed a new FIR under the relevant parts of the IPC and the IT Act at PS Special Offenses and Cyber Crime. Respondent No.5 was also accused of recruiting Plaintiff’s staff and clients using information gained unlawfully by the Respondents, according to the counterclaim.

As a result, Plaintiff filed a motion in this Court to seek a court injunction prohibiting the Plaintiff. Anyone acting on their behalf/through them from using certain sensitive information about the Plaintiff, to use any authorship or other Proprietary rights belonged to the Claimant, explicitly or implicitly trying to lure any Defendant’s clients, likely to induce any Defendant’s staff to quit jobs, or provoking any of the Defendant’s staff to The Plaintiff further demanded damages of 2,00,01,000/- from Respondents 1 to 5 jointly liable, plus interest at 18% per annum until the payment date.

The Defendants were summoned by the Court and allowed to file a prepared statement (if any). Regarding the Plaintiff’s IA, the jury issued an interim injunctive relief prohibiting the Plaintiff from divulging or using any sensitive information, classified information, or other information relating to the Lawsuit Firm’s operations, as well as from using patented technology data of any kind, including authorship and other intellectual rights of the Complainant, or from engaging in any actions or doings that will intrude the Plea.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is copyright infringement.

Copyright infringement refers to the unauthorised use, reproduction, distribution, or exploitation of copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright owner. This includes works such as literary, artistic, musical, or other creative expressions protected by copyright laws.

What are the remedies available for copyright infringement?

Remedies for copyright infringement include: Injunctions: Court orders to stop the infringing activities. Damages: Monetary compensation for the losses suffered by the copyright owner. Accounting of Profits: The infringer may be required to account for and pay any profits derived from the infringement. Seizure and Destruction: Courts may order the destruction or removal of infringing materials. Criminal Proceedings: In some cases, copyright infringement can lead to criminal charges.

What is the penalty for Copyright infringement?

The penalties for copyright infringement vary by jurisdiction but may include: Civil Penalties: Fines and damages awarded through civil lawsuits. Criminal Penalties: Criminal charges, leading to fines and imprisonment. Injunctions: Court orders to cease infringing activities. Statutory Damages: Pre-established damages defined by copyright laws. Seizure of Assets: Courts may order the confiscation of assets related to the infringement.

Other Related Articles

• How to Avoid Copyright Infringement ?
• Remedies for Copyright Infringement in India
• Understanding Copyright Infringement in India

Introduction The fabrication of a form of intellectual property work without the authorization of the copyright holders is known as…

Tips to Avoid Copyright Infringement: Protect your Creatives

Overview: In today’s digital era, where information is shared, and creativity knows no bounds, it’s essential to be well-informed about…

[Civil & Criminal] Remedies for Copyright Infringement in India

Copyright Infringement Remedies  Remedies for Copyright Infringement – Copyright infringement can have serious implications. Learn about the remedies available to copyright…

Report Copyright Infringement: A Comprehensive Guide

What is Copyright Infringement? Copyright infringement refers to the unauthorized use, reproduction, or distribution of copyrighted materials. It’s essential to…

Understanding G-Secs and How to Invest in Them for Business?

G-secs refer to government securities or, in other words, loans or capital issued by the government. The biggest advantage associated…

Startups to Continue Receiving a Tax Holiday

Businesses of all sizes and types have been having a tough year courtesy of the coronavirus pandemic. The Indian government…

How the Rupee Depreciation is Enticing NRIs in Real Estate?

The Indian currency has depreciated as much as 5.2% against the US dollar in 2022 so far. The rupee’s depreciation…

Subscribe to our newsletter blogs

Private Limited Company Registration Private Limited Company with Indian and Foreign Shareholders One Person Company Registration Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) Registration Partnership Firm Registration Subisdary Company Registration Subsidiary of an Indian Company in India Public Limited Company Registration Section 8 (Not-for-Profit) Company Registration Trust Registration Society Registration USA Company Incorporation Register a NBFC Company in India NIDHI Company Registration Producer Company Registration Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) Tax Deduction Account Number (TAN) Trademark Registration - India Trademark Renewal International Trademark Application Trademark Ownership Transfer Respond to a Trademark Objection File a Trademark Opposition Judgments Vakil GPT Libra Winding Up of Company roDTEP Private Company into OPC Patent Search Apply for a Provisional Patent Apply for a Patent Changes in IEC Changes in GST LUT Application ITR for LLP Business Ideas Business Loans NGO Registration Change the Objectives of Your Company Sole Proprietorship Scope of Work and Deliverables Agreement Service Level Agreement Business Compliance PIL Web Ecommerce Development Hallmark Registration Caveat Petition OSP License GDPR APEDA Registration Money Recovery Vendor Termination RBI Compounding Application Patent Infringement Labour Law Non Compete Agreement Relinquishment Deed Spice Board Registration Convert Private to Public Limited Company Posh Compliance Trademark Assignment Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Company Name Search Corporate tax e-FIR Property Documents Verification Trademark Infringement Well Known Trademarks Copyright Infringement Intellectual Property Employment Agreement Income tax Notice Financial Agreement Trademark Search NRI Legal Services Professional Tax for Employees Professional Tax for Directors ESI Registration PF Registration ESI Filing PF Filing Cancellation of GST Professional Tax Registration DIPP Certification Basic Food License State Food License Central Food License Fundraising PF and ESI Filings PF and ESI Registration Professional Tax Filing Shops and Establishment Act Registration Importer Exporter Code Registration SSI / MSME Registration Trade License Registration Copyright Registration Change in trademark application Trademark Withdrawal Payroll Services Goods & Service Tax (GST) Registration Trademark Watch ISO Registration Hearing Labour Welfare Fund Registration USA Company Compliances NGO Compliance Non-Disclosure Agreement Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) Get Advice from a Lawyer Get a Detailed Legal Opinion from an Expert Commercial Rental / Lease Agreement Leave and License Agreement Prepare a Power of Attorney Agreement Review Shareholders' Agreement Term Sheet Review a Term Sheet given by an Investor Share Purchase Agreement Terms of Service and Privacy Policy Terms of Service Privacy Policy Get Basic Legal Advice Get Basic Legal Opinion Get an Advanced Legal Opinion Get Expert Legal Opinion Legal Agreement Legal Notice Disclaimer Draft a Consumer Complaint Founders Agreement Franchise Agreement Vendor Agreement Master Service Agreement Joint Venture Agreement Freelancer Agreement Consultancy Agreement Profit Sharing Agreement Cheque Bounce Notice Freelancer / Contractor's Agreement Loan Agreement Terms of Service and Privacy Policy Website Terms of Service and Privacy Policy App Terms of Service and Privacy Policy - Web & App Probate of Will Divorce Consultation Property Registration Property Consultancy - opinion Management of a Trust Management of a Society Dissolution of Partnership Firm Accounting and Book Keeping GST Filings TDS Filings File Annual Returns for your Private Limited Company Get help from a Company Secretary for your Private Limited Company Get help from a Company Secretary for your Limited Liability Partnership Change your Company Name Change the Objectives of Your Company Appointment of a Director Removal/Resignation of a Director Change the Official Address of Private Company Close your Private Limited Company Convert your Partnership into a Private Limited company Convert your Sole Proprietorship into a Private Limited Company Convert your Private Limited Company into an LLP Convert your Private Limited Company into a Public Limited Company Income tax returns - Propreitorship Firm Financial Projections for Bank Loan Investor Pitch Deck CA/CS certification Increase in Authorized Capital of your Company Change the Objectives of Your LLP Change your LLP Name Adding a Designated Partner Change the Official Address of Your LLP Increase in Contribution to your LLP Change LLP Agreement Close your Limited Liability Partnership Convert your Sole Proprietorship into an LLP Compliance - Section 8 Close down your Not-for-Profit (Section 8) Company Get Share Certificates for your Company Replacement of a Director Change in the Designation of Director Adding a Partner in LLP Replacement of Designated Partner Resignation of Designated Partner Resignation of Partner Change Name of your LLP Close your Partnership firm Close your Proprietorship firm Close your Public Limited Company Convert your LLP into a Private Limited Company Convert your Partnership into an LLP Convert your Sole Proprietorship into a Partnership Audit your Company Valuation of Business Convert your Private Limited Company into an One Person Company Transfer of Shares Change in Authorized Capital of your Company Employee Stock Options (ESOP) Issue of New Shares (To existing promoters) RBI & SECRETARIAL COMPLIANCES FOR FOREIGN INVESTMENT ISSUE OF NEW SHARES IN YOUR COMPANY (TO OTHER THAN EXISTING PROMOTERS) Employment Agreement with ESOP Due Diligence of Company Convert your One Person Company into a Private Limited Company DIR-3 KYC Filing Issue of Convertible Debentures (CCD) Permanent Account Number (PAN) Religion change Gender Change Apply for Name Change - Minor Name Change Application FSSAI Marriage Certificate Mutual Divorce Court Marriage Public Notice - Gazette Notification Make a Will Residential Rental Agreement Gift Deed File your Income Tax Returns - Salaried Individual Logo design Free GST Registration Internal Start a Branch Office in India Get a Section 80 G Tax Exemption Trademark Search ISI Registration Apply for Birth Certificate Employment Contract without ESOP Sale Deed CA Advisory Service Apply for Succession Certificate Legal notice for recovery of dues Apply for legal heir certificate Apply for Psara License RERA complaints Main Service Startup India Registration Integrated Accounting + GST Talk to a CA Talk to a Lawyer Talk to a CS FCRA Registration FCRA Renewal Change in Member or Nominee of OPC Change in Particulars of Director Creation or Modification of Charge Satisfaction of Charge Conversion of Dormant Company to Active Company Conversion of Loan into Equity Shares Change the Official Address of Your Business (from one state to another state ) Get Support on Opening Current Bank Account Design registration Legal Metrology NGO Deed Drafting File an Opposition for Brand Infringement Darpan Registration Cessation of Partner or Designated Partner SEBI IA Registration Surrender of DIN/DPIN Foreign Liabilities and Assets (FLA) Return Change the Official Address of Your LLP (From One State to Another State) Change the Official Address of Your Company (Outside the City) CSR-1 Registration Service

Bengaluru - Bangalore Chennai Cochin Coimbatore Delhi Gurugram - Gurgaon Hyderabad Kolkata Mumbai Noida Thiruvananthapuram Vijayawada Visakhapatnam Addanki Adilabad Agartala Agra Ahmedabad Aizawl Ajmer Akola Alappuzha Aligarh Allahabad Alwar Amaravati Ambala Amritsar Anand Anantapur Andaman Aurangabad Aurangabad-Bihar Azamgarh Badaun Badlapur Bagaha Bagalkot Bahadurgarh Baltora Baraut Bardhaman Bareilly Bathinda Begusarai Belgaum Bellary Berhampur Bhadrak Bhadreswar Bhagalpur Bharuch Bhavnagar Bhayandar Bhilai Bhilwara Bhiwandi Bhiwani Bhopal Bhubaneswar Bidar Bijapur Bikaner Bilaspur Bina Etawa Birati Birbhum Bishalgarh Botlagudur Budaun Budgam Buldhana Bundi Cachar Calicut Chandauli Chandigarh Chandigarh-Punjab Chhapur Chhatarpur Chhindwara chidambaram Chitradurga Chittoor Chittorgarh Churu Cooch Behar Cuddalore Cuttack Dahod Daman Darbhanga Dehradun Deoghar Dera Bassi Dewas Dhaka Dhanbad Darbhanga Dharmapuri Dharmanagar Dharwad Dhule Dimapur Dindigul Dispur Dombivli Dumarkunda Dungri Durgapur Dwarka Eluru Erode Faridabad Firozabad Firozpur Gandhidham Gandhinagar Gangtok Ganjam Gannavaram Ghaziabad Gonda Gorakhpur Greater Noida Gulbarga Guntur Gunupur Guwahati Gwalior Haldwani Hansi Hanumangarh Haridwar Hisar Hoshiarpur Hosur Howrah Hubli Idukki Imphal Indore Itanagar Jabalpur Jagdalpur Jaipur Jalandhar Jalgaon Jalgaon Jamod Jamalpur Jammu Jamnagar Jamshedpur Jamui Jaunpur Jhansi Jind Jodhpur Jorhat Kadapa Kakinada Kalahandi Kalimpong Kalyan Kangra Kankroli Kannur Kanpur Kanyakumari Kapurthala Karad Karaikal Karaikudi Karimnagar Karjat Karnal Karur kasganj Kashipur Katihar Katni Kavaratti Khamgaon Khammam Kharagpur Khordha Kochi Kohima Kolhapur Kollam Koppal Kota Kottayam Kozhikode Krishnagiri Kullu Kumbakonam Kurnool Kurukshetra Lalitpur Latur Loharu Lucknow Ludhiana Madhubani Madikeri Madurai Mainpuri Malappuram Malda Mandi Mandsaur Mangalore Mapusa Margao Marthandam Mathura Meerut Midnapore Mirzapur Mohali Mone Moradabad Morbi Morena Muktsar Mundra Muzaffarnagar Muzaffarpur Mysore Nabarangpur Nadiad Nagapattinam Nagaur Nagercoil Nagpur Nainital Nalanda Namakkal Nanded Nandigama Nashik Navi Mumbai Navsari Nellore Nilgiris Nizamabad Ongole Ooty Other Cities Palakkad Palampur Palgadh Pali Panaji Panchkula Panipat Paradip Pathanamthitta Pathankot Patiala Patna Pilani Port Blair Pratapgarh Puducherry Pune Raichur Raigarh Raipur Rajahmundry Rajapalayam Rajkot Ramanathapuram Ramgarh Ranchi Raniganj Ratlam Rewa Rohtak Roorkee Rourkela Rupnagar Saharanpur Salem Sangli Sangrur Satara Secunderabad Shillong Shimla Shimoga shirdi Sikar Siliguri Silvassa Singrauli Sirmaur Sirmur Sitamarhi Sitapur Sivaganga Sivakasi Siwan Solan Solapur Sonipat sonla Sri Ganganagar Srinagar Surat Talbehat Tezpur Thalassery Thane Thanjavur Theni Thoothukudi Thrissur Tiruchirappalli Tirunelveli Tirupati Tirupur Tiruvannamalai Tumkur Udaipur Udupi Ujjain Una Uppala Uttarpara Vadodara Vapi Varanasi Vasai Vellore Vidisha Vill Damla Viluppuram Vinukonda Virar Virudhunagar Warangal Washim Yamuna Nagar Yelahanka Zirakpur Select City*

Email Enter valid email addres

You'll be redirected to payment page to reserve a callback from our expert

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Recap 2021 – Indian Copyright Case Laws

In this post, we bring to you few Copyright Cases decided by Indian Courts in the year 2021:-

Sony Pictures Network India Pvt. Ltd. vs. www.sportsala.tv And Ors

In this case, Sony Pictures filed a suit against numerous defendants primarily praying for a permanent injunction against reproducing, making available, distributing, broadcasting, and so on of the cricket matches between India’s tours of England and Sri Lanka. During the pendency of the suit, Sony Pictures prayed for an interim injunction asking for more or less similar reliefs.

The Court granted an injunction in favour of Sony Pictures against websites including their redirects, mirrors and alpha-numeric versions. A dynamic injunction was also granted against rogue websites, which may reproduce, broadcast, make available, communicate to public or distribute the cricket matches. The Court also passed an order asking ISPs to block the mentioned and other rogue websites, and asked Government of India to give appropriate directions to prevent infringement of copyrights of Sony Pictures in the matches.

The interim injunction also covered MSOs and cable operators, and local commissioners were appointed to monitor and act against violations of the Court’s orders. The Court’s orders primarily cover the copyrights held by Sony Pictures, and   by implication permits non-infringing uses and fair uses of the content pertaining to the cricket matches between India and England/Sri Lanka.

Citation: Sony Pictures Network India Pvt. Ltd. vs. www.sportsala.tv And Ors., High Court of Delhi, CS(COMM) 289/2021 decide on – 4.06.2021 available at – https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7278687/

Krishna Kishore Singh vs. Sarla A. Saraogi & Ors., High Court of Delhi

In this case, the Delhi High Court refused to grant an interim injunction against publication and release of films purportedly related to Sushant Singh Rajput (SSR) as the plaintiff, SSR’s father failed to make out a prima facie case, and because irreparable harm and balance of convenience were in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff in the case argued that films and series such as ‘NYAY The Justice,’ ‘Suicide or Murder,’ and ‘Shashank,’ must be injuncted and restrained from being released, published and communicated to the public. The plaintiff filed the case on several grounds including violation of publicity rights and privacy rights, right to fair trial, defamation, and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. After reviewing the facts and relevant cases, the Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to make out a valid case for violation of celebrity or publicity rights of SSR or his family members because the plaintiff was not aware of the content of the films, the defendants were not using SSR’s image, likeness or name, and because the films had appropriate disclaimers. It also pointed out that celebrity rights may not subsist after the death of the celebrity, and that facts that form part of the public record may be used by the defendants without liability. About defamation, the Court stated that a case of defamation is merely speculative without access to the defamatory content.

The Court also pointed out that no violation of the right to fair trial may be contemplated because of publication in news or by way of films. It went on to note that freedom of expression prevails over Article 21 for information that forms part of the public record. While denying the injunction, it asked the defendants to render accounts as any damage may be compensated by way of damages.

Citation: Krishna Kishore Singh vs. Sarla A. Saraogi & Ors., High Court of Delhi, CS(COMM) 187/2021 – 10.06.2021 – https://indiankanoon.org/doc/152020280/

Dassault System Solidworks Corporation & Anr. vs. Spartan Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd. Anr.

In this case, the Delhi High Court has dealt with the issue of copyright infringement of software. Plaintiff no.1 is a French company which has developed a software called ‘Solidworks’. This software facilitates modelling and development of products in a three-dimensional environment. Plaintiff no.2 is a sister concern established by Plaintiff no.1 to manage all its affairs with respect to ‘Solidworks’ in India. Plaintiff no.1 and Plaintiff no.2 (“Plaintiffs”), state that the software was developed by their employees as work for hire, and hence the copyright therein belongs to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs claim that the software program and its instruction manuals are literary work under the Copyright Act, 1957 (Act) and is entitled to copyright protection. The software was first published in the United States of America (US) and is entitled to protection in India under Section 40 of the Copyright Act as India and the US are members of the Berne Convention, Universal Copyright Convention and the World Trade Organisation’s TRIPS Agreement.

The Plaintiffs allege that in May 2018, the Plaintiffs received information regarding the commercial use of pirated and unauthorised versions of the ‘Solidworks’ software program by the Defendants, without paying the required  license fee. The Plaintiffs further asserted that such unauthorized use of the software had increased since August, 2020 and all efforts to reach an amicable resolution were futile, as the Defendants were denying infringement.

Following this, the Plaintiffs approached the Court seeking an injunction, as use of any pirated or unauthorised copy of the Plaintiffs’ software program would amount to copyright infringement under Section 51 of the Copyright Act. The Plaintiffs also relied on Section 63B of the Act, which makes it a criminal offence to knowingly use a pirated computer program. Further, the Plaintiffs asserted that, there has also been a contractual infringement and intellectual property infringement, due to the violation of the End User License Agreement by the Defendants.

While issuing the order, the court remarked that, “Software infringement is a serious issue, and deserves to be nipped in the bud”. The Court granted the Plaintiffs an ad interim ex-parte injunction, restraining the Defendants from using, reproducing and distributing any pirated or unlicensed or unauthorized software programs owned by the Plaintiffs and also from formatting their computer systems and/or erasing any data, pertaining to assisting others to infringe the Plaintiffs’ copyright.

Citation: Dassault System Solidworks Corporation & Anr. vs. Spartan Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd. Anr., High Court of Delhi, CS(COMM) 34/2021 – 28.01.2021 https://www.bananaip.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Dassault-Systemes-Solidworks.pdf

Mr. John Hart Jr. & Anr. vs. Mr. Mukul Deora & Ors, High Court of Delhi

In this case, Plaintiff No. 1 claims to be vested with the exclusive copyright to make a movie adaptation of the book “The White Tiger” authored by Mr. Aravind Adiga by virtue of a Literary Option/Purchase Agreement dated 4th March, 2009. Plaintiff no.1 and Plaintiff no.2 (“Plaintiffs”), have approached the Court at the eleventh hour to seek an injunction restricting the release of the film “The White Tiger” (‘Film’) produced by Defendant No. 1 to be released on the streaming platform, Netflix. The Plaintiffs assert that when it came to their knowledge that Netflix was in the process of making and releasing the film, a cease-and-desist notice dated 4th October, 2019, was sent by Plaintiff No. 2 to Defendant No. 1. Further, the Plaintiffs stated that allowing the release of the film would result in irreparable injury, as the Plaintiffs planned to release the film in Hollywood. The Plaintiffs also attempted to justify the delay in approaching the Court by stating that the delay was unavoidable as the Plaintiffs were unaware of the fact that Defendants were shooting the film during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The court opined that no case exists for grant of any interlocutory injunction and the case constitutes a misuse of the judicial process. The court held that, “The Plaintiffs were aware of the possibility of the film being released on the Netflix platform at least from 4th October, 2019. There is not a scintilla of material produced on record to justify the Plaintiffs approaching this court less than 24 hours prior to the release of the subject film, seeking stay thereof.” The court relies on several precedents to elucidate that a Plaintiff who approaches the court at the eleventh hour, seeking an interlocutory injunction against the release of a cinematographic film, is disentitled to any such relief. A delay in approaching the Court for an equitable relief is always fatal.

The Delhi High Court held that the balance of convenience favours the Defendants and by granting an injunction at the eleventh hour, greater irreparable loss and injury would be caused. The Plaintiffs stand disentitled from seeking any interlocutory injunction against the release of the film on the ground of unconscionable delay in approaching the court. The court nevertheless directed the defendants to keep detailed accounts of the earnings made from the film so that, if the Plaintiffs were to succeed in the future, the account details would facilitate in awarding damages or monetary compensation.

Citation: Mr. John Hart Jr. & Anr. vs. Mr. Mukul Deora & Ors, High Court of Delhi, CS (Comm) 38/2021 – 21.01.2021 – https://www.bananaip.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/John-Hart-Jr.pdf

Aman Chhabra And 7 Ors vs Trac Entertainment Pvt Ltd And 6 Ors.

In this case involving the copyright of two music videos, “Pyar Ko Na Kaho” and “Lutti Heer,” the Appellant contested the order of the Single Judge vacating an interlocutory consent order restraining the Respondents from commercially exploiting the songs. On appeal, the Division Bench reversed the order of the Single Judge stating that time ought to be given to the Appellants to contest the interim application filed by the Respondents to vacate the interlocutory consent order. This is required as several facts that formed the basis for vacation were disputable and should have been considered by the Single Judge. The Division Bench also pointed out that as the attempts by the Respondents to commercially exploit the songs yielded no financial returns, and that the songs can be taken down from the platform, Believe International, at any time, no third party rights have been created, and therefore, the interlocutory consent order may be in force until the Single Judge decides that matter after hearing the parties. Citation: Aman Chhabra And 7 Ors vs Trac Entertainment Pvt Ltd And 6 …, Decided by Bombay High Court on 3 July, 2021, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/111847206/

Unknown vs Iquest Enterprises Private Ltd. and Others

In this case, the primary question before the Madras High Court was with respect to ownership of satellite rights pertaining to the Telegu film, Pelli Koduku. Like many other films of the nineties, the agreements with respect to transfer of rights with respect to this film were not worded very clearly, and copyright terms were not always clearly expressed. Also, many of these films are the subject of multiple transfers, which in this case includes at least five. Owing to ambiguity of rights, duplicity of right transfers was common, and in this case, the plaintiff prayed for a declaration of copyright ownership over satellite rights. After reviewing the first transfer agreement, the Court came to the conclusion that the initial transfer included satellite rights also. Based on the conclusion, the Court stated that the subsequent transfer to the plaintiff was not valid. As the transfer/assignment was not valid, the Court concluded that the plaintiff does not hold the satellite rights asserted. Citation: Unknown vs Iquest Enterprises Private Ltd and Others, Decided by Madras High Court on 14 July, 2021, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92332286/

Muthoot Finance Limited vs Shalini Kalra & Ors.

In this case, the Plaintiff, Muthoot Finance Limited, a non-banking financial institution, provided business and personal loans against the deposit of gold jewellery. As a part of this business the Plaintiff had to maintain proprietary and confidential information related to its vast customer base in the form of a database which in turn constituted a ‘literary work’ as under Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and it also amounted to trade secrets of Plaintiff which ought not be disclosed to any third party. The Defendants no. 1 to 4 herein were the former employees of the Plaintiff. At the time of joining the employment, each of them had duly signed the non-disclosure undertaking as provided in the appointment letter along with a Declaration of fidelity. The main allegation in the plaint was that the Defendant No. 1 & 4, during the course of their employment, had unauthorizedly and illegally downloaded, extracted, copied and later on transmitted the confidential information of the Plaintiff’s customers to Defendant No 2 & 3 along with employees of Defendant No.5, a company engaged in similar services as that of the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s customer base started drifting towards the Defendant No.5. Eventually Defendant 1 & 3 on being terminated by the Plaintiff, in turn joined the employment under Defendant 5. Aggrieved by this, the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against Defendant No. 1 to 5 with the Joint Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, New Delhi. However, there were similar instances of disclosure of confidential information at various other branches of the Plaintiff which in turn resulted in a loss of around 9 crore rupees to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff again lodged an FIR at PS Special Offences and Cyber Crime under the relevant sections of IPC and IT Act. The plaint herein also averred that Defendant No.5 was poaching the Plaintiff’s employees and customers with the aid of the information illegally obtained by the Defendants. Hence the Plaintiff moved this court seeking a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the Defendants and any other person acting on behalf of/through them from using/disclosing any confidential information pertaining to the Plaintiff, using/infringing any copyright or other IP rights belonging to the Plaintiff, from directly or indirectly luring/canvassing any of the Plaintiff’s customers, inducing any of the Plaintiff’s employees to quit employment or provoke them to join the Defendant No.5 or any of its businesses, and to give up all the said confidential information/trade secrets in hand. The Plaintiff also sought damages of Rs.2,00,01,000/- payable to the Plaintiff jointly and severally by Defendants 1 to 5 together with an interest of 18% p.a. till the date of payment. The Court herein issued summons to the Defendants and gave them an opportunity to file a written statement (if any). And pertaining to the IA filed by the Plaintiff, the court ordered an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from disclosing or using any confidential information, trade secrets or any other information, pertaining to the business and operations of the Plaintiff Company, and from using proprietary content of any nature, including copyright and other intellectual property rights of the Plaintiff Company or doing any acts or deeds that will infringe/dilute the Plaintiff Company’s intellectual property rights. Citation: Muthoot Finance Limited vs Shalini Kalra & Ors, Decided by Delhi High Court – Orders on 13th September, 2021, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/22108976/

Progress Software Solutions vs DCIT

In this case, the Appellant (Assessee) was a resident company involved in the business of trading and sale of software license and development of computer software. For the assessment year 2009-10, the Assessee filed the return of income declaring Rs.89,29,099/- as loss. But originally the assessment was completed later on in 2011, which was computed after making few disallowances as u/s 143(3) of the Act. On an appeal against this assessment order to the learned Commissioner (Appeals), partial relief was granted, by deleting one of the disallowances. Still being aggrieved by the same additions repeated once again in the fresh assessment, the Assessee again approached the Tribunal. With regard to the disallowance of Rs.23,50,466/-, the Assessee put forth the contention that by merely being a distributor, the payment so made to Savvion, USA (a non-resident company) for the purchase of a copyrighted article for the purpose of reselling was not in the nature of royalty under either U/A 12 of Indo-USA tax treaty or u/s 9(1)(vi) of the Act, and therefore tax deducted at source as u/s 195 of the Act was not required. Thus, the court analysed whether a copyrighted article was genuinely purchased for the purpose of resale/distribution or whether it was done for some internal use or according to the convenience and own will of the Assessee. After verifying the reseller agreement, the court concluded that the license granted therein was not for purpose of any internal use. The Court found that the agreement also restricted the reseller/any other third party from translating, modifying, extending, de-assembling or reversing the said copyrighted article (the software program herein). The reseller too acknowledged and agreed that on occasion of any unauthorized use/disclosure/copying of the software program, it would be liable for remedies and consequential actions from Savvion, USA. Citing few judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble SC, it was averred that when a non-transferable and non-exclusive license to resell a copyrighted article without actually transferring the copyright in the said article was provided to the ultimate end-user/distributor, then there was no additional right granted to sub-license/transfer/reverse/reproduce/modify anything, other than that allowed by virtue of the license given to the ultimate user. It was agreed by the Tribunal that payment made for the purchase of copyrighted article for the purpose of distribution was not in the nature of royalty and hence the grounds were allowed and thus the concerned disallowance was thereby deleted. Citation : Progress Software Solutions … vs Dcit 13(1)(2), Mumbai, Decided by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Mumbai on 30th August, 2021, available at : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/177640115/

Cristina Maiorescu vs M/S Nishangi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

The Plaintiff, a professional photographer filed a suit against the Defendants seeking direction from the Bangalore District Court for payment of a sum of Rs.1,56,025/- towards an invoice for services provided by her, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Plaintiff entered an agreement with the Defendants for providing photography services with respect to products to be sold by the Defendant No.1, a company operating a chain of eateries/beverage stations under the name and style ‘Frootality’ in Hyderabad and Bangalore. As per the agreement, a sum of Rs.2,23,000/- was to be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff, who had to provide 62 photographs in two phases. Further, in pursuance of the agreement, the Defendant No.1 paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Plaintiff as advance. It was alleged by the Plaintiff that after completion of her assignment, she raised an invoice and Defendants neither raised any objections regarding the completion of the assignment nor made the payment. It was also the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendants No.1 and 2 utilized various services of the Plaintiff outside the scope of photography assignment and she also permitted the Defendant No.3 to reside with her. The Plaintiff alleged that she incurred an expense to the tune of Rs. 3,85,000/- in fulfilling these and that the Defendants blatantly violated her intellectual property rights. The Court held that owing to the facts and circumstances of the case, the burden was on the Plaintiff to prove that she provided photography services to the Defendant and that the Defendants were liable to pay damages and compensation for the additional services rendered by the Plaintiff and for unlawful use of photographs clicked by her. The Plaintiff placed on record evidence which included a copy of email communications between Plaintiff and Defendants, a copy of the invoice, a C.D. containing photographs, screenshots of websites of defendants, and a copy of the notice. The Court, after examining the evidence, concluded that the Plaintiff successfully established that she provided the services to the defendant, who agreed to pay the amount that was claimed by her and the interest amount was also held to be appropriate. However, with regards to the additional services and unlawful use of photographs, except the issuance of notice no other evidence was available. The Court held that in absence of any cogent material, Plaintiff was not entitled for damages and compensation as claimed in the plaint. Citation: Cristina Maiorescu vs M/S Nishangi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, on 24 September, 2021, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/139516246/

Saregama India Limited v. Next Radio Limited & Ors.

The Apex Court, in the instant case, set aside an interim order passed by the Madras High Court, which held that copyrighted material cannot be broadcasted without prior notice as per Rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules, 2013. The High Court had modified specific provisions of the Rule and applied it to the broadcasters, by opining that the Rule lacked flexibility and created difficulties for the broadcasters. The mandate to furnish the particulars in the notice was revised to fifteen days as against 24 hours. Moreover, the High Court rendered the second proviso under the Rule regarding prior notice as a mere routine procedure instead of an exception loosening the grips on broadcasters. The Petitioner pointed out that this modification would be applicable pan-India and create disparity regarding the Rule. Various landmark cases were relied on by the Petitioner in establishing the settled principle of law, which prohibited the judiciary from modifying or rewriting the words in a Statute while interpreting the law. While setting aside the interim order, the Supreme Court opined that the Courts were not empowered to revise or rewrite the provisions of a Statute by way of judicial review. Emphasis was laid on the fact that the powers to make and rewrite laws vested with the Legislature. Furthermore, the Court did not deliberate on the merits of the respondent’s submission concerning the validity of Rule 29(4). Citation: Saregama India Limited v. Next Radio Limited & Ors., decided by the Supreme Court on 27th September, 2021, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/11609677/

Narendra Hirawat And Co. vs Aftab Music Industries & Anr.

Plaintiff Narendra Hirawat and Co. filed a suit against the Defendants for violating consent terms and breaching film rights accorded to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs claimed that despite the existence of an agreement which granted the Plaintiffs perpetual rights over certain movies produced by the Defendants, the latter uploaded it on their YouTube Channel. The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendants accepted the Plaintiffs’ right over the film in perpetuity by relying on the Consent Terms mentioned in a suit filed in 2012. The Defendants countered this by alleging that they had only granted ‘Internet Rights’ and not ‘YouTube Rights’ to the Plaintiffs. However, the High Court of Bombay rendered the Defendants’ arguments ‘non-sensical’ by holding that ‘YouTube Rights’ fall within the ambit of ‘Internet Rights’ and the two cannot be dealt with separately. The Court added that YouTube could not function without the existence of the Internet hence denying the standalone ‘YouTube Rights’ claimed by the Defendants. The Court ordered the Defendants to stop infringing the rights accorded to the Plaintiffs, and to cease storing or making copies of the films on any platform. The Court explicitly forbade the Defendants from representing their non-existent right over the films to any third party. Although the Court opined that exemplary and punitive costs are to be imposed along with issuing a contempt notice to the Defendants for having intentionally breached the agreement, no such imposition or issuance of notice were ordered. The Court denied the Defendants their right to reply by stating that the Defendants were dishonest and failed to adhere to the commitments made to the Court. Citation: Narendra Hirawat and Co. vs Aftab Music Industries & Anr. on 28th September, 2021, available at: https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/narendra-hirawat-co-v-aftab-music-industries-anr-401683.pdf

M/s. Sun T.V. Network Ltd. v. M/s. Shree CMR Productions

The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that it was the exclusive copyright holder of a Kannada film “ADDHURI”, along with a permanent injunction against the Defendant No. 2. The Defendant No. 1 assigned the copyrights in the film to Plaintiff perpetually, and consequently the Plaintiff became the absolute copyright owner of the said film, and could broadcast it without geographical area restrictions. On 02.03.2016, Defendant No. 2 telecast the songs from the said movie without permission or licence from the Plaintiff. The Court examined Censor Certificate, the copyright assignment deed, and the supplementary agreement. The Court found that the assignment agreements showed that the Plaintiff was the exclusive copyright holder. The Court held that by telecasting the songs on 02.03.2016, Defendant No. 2 infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright, as it was done without obtaining any permission or licence from Plaintiff. Citation: M/S. Sun Tv Network Ltd vs M/S. Shree Cmr Productions, Decided by Madras High Court, on 7 September, 2021, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/64307124/

M/s. Sun TV Network Ltd. v. M/s. Nitin Productions & Anr.

Defendant Nitin Productions assigned the copyright of the film “HUDUGAATA” in favour of the Plaintiff after receipt of the agreed consideration. By virtue of the agreement, the Plaintiff became the absolute copyright owner of the aforementioned film which included satellite rights, radio rights and other similar rights perpetually. However, Defendant M/s. Public TV, telecast songs from the film without obtaining prior permission. The Plaintiff, which held the copyright of both digital and negative format of the film, alleged that the Defendant had illicitly telecast the songs of the film by making use of pirated CDs. After perusing the exhibits submitted, the High Court of Madras found a valid agreement and also found that the Defendant made use of pirated CDs. In an ex-parte hearing, the Court declared that the Plaintiff was the exclusive copyright holder of the film and granted a permanent injunction against the Defendants, as they had no right to telecast the film or any part thereof. Citation:  M/s. Sun TV Network Ltd. v. M/s. Nitin Productions & Anr. on 7th September, 2021, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/167369065/

M/s. Sun TV Network Ltd. v. Mr. B.V. Ravindranath & Anr.

The producers assigned the copyright over the Kannada film ‘JEEVA’ to the Defendant Mr. B.V. Ravindranath, who in turn assigned the same in favour of the Plaintiff. By virtue of the agreement, the Plaintiff became the absolute copyright owner of the aforementioned film which included broadcasting via satellite, radio and other similar platforms perpetually. However, Defendant M/s. Public TV, telecast a song from the film without obtaining prior permission from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff alleged that the defendant had illicitly telecast songs of the film using pirated copies. The High Court of Madras inspected the exhibits put forth by the Plaintiff which included the assignment agreement and pirated CD of the film. The court found that the assignment agreement was valid, and also found the Defendant to have made use of pirated copies of the film. In the ex-parte hearing, the Court declared that the Plaintiff was the exclusive copyright holder of the film and granted permanent injunction against the Defendants, prohibiting them from telecasting the film or any part of it on their channel. Citation: M/s. Sun TV Network Ltd. v. Mr. B.V. Ravindranath & Anr. on 7th September, 2021, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197298793/

M/s Sun TV Network Ltd. v. Mr. P. Ramesh

The producer of the film, M/s Megha Movies, assigned the entire copyrights for a Kannada film in favour of Defendant No. 1 (P. Ramesh) on October 11th, 2012, who in turn passed on the copyrights permanently to the Plaintiff after 19 days. Thus, the Plaintiff became absolute owner of copyright for the Kannada film titled “EDEGARIKE” to broadcast it through any satellite system, broadcasting service, mode of transmission. or any form of communication. Defendant No. 2, M/s Public TV, telecast songs from the film in March 2016. The Plaintiff argued that it was the exclusive copyright holder for negatives and digital format of the movie, and that Defendant No. 2 was not allowed to exploit the film partially or fully without paying licensing fee or seeking permission. The relief of declaration was granted by the Madras High Court because the assignment deed in favour of the Defendant No. 1 from the first owner (producer) and further assignment towards Plaintiff by the 1st Defendant showed that the Plaintiff had full copyrights for the film. Defendant No. 2 also did not approach the Court to justify release of the pirated version of the song made on CD through television without the permission of the copyright holder (Plaintiff), thus relief of permanent injunction (ex-parte order) was granted by the Court in favour of the Plaintiff. Citation: M/s Sun TV Network Ltd. vs Mr. P. Ramesh, Decided by The Madras High Court on 7th September, 2021, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159185632/

Mrs. Sellappapa Keeran v. S. Vijayaraghavan & Anr.

The Plaintiff, Mrs. Sellappapa Keeran, wife of late Pulavar Keeran, a famous religious Hindu preacher and historian, sought a declaration from the Madras High Court that she was the rightful owner of the copyright of her husband’s works. She also filed for an injunction against the Defendants, asking them to surrender all master tapes containing original recordings of the speeches, lectures and discourses and in any other form like cassettes or CDs.  Pulavar Keeran had met Defendant No. 1., S. Vijayaraghavan, who was the proprietor of Vani Recording Co., a small audio cassette shop in 1987, and decided to record his concerts in the form of 38 cassettes between 1987 and 1990 and sell them so they could be listened to at people’s convenience. He allowed Defendant No. 1 to promote the cassettes in exchange for incurring the expenses involved in making the recordings. Defendant No. 1 also sold certain cassettes through a dealer, along with a temporary mutually beneficial agreement based on the market and the number of copies sold. The Plaintiff claimed that her husband did permit any further reproduction after a formal agreement laying down the profit-sharing ratio was in place. He did not part with the copyright, and was not paid by Defendant No. 1 for his recordings. He suffered a brain hemorrhage in 1990, so he only completed recording 12 of his works. The Plaintiff entrusted the master tapes with Defendant No. 1 based on his assurance that he would keep it safe and maintain them well in his shop, but intended to retain the copyright of her husband’s works. S. Vijayaraghavan commercially exploited the recorded works, against the Plaintiff’s wishes, while she was abroad. The Plaintiff’s counsel stated that as per Section 2(d) and Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the Plaintiff would be the rightful copyright owner as she was a legal heir, and Defendant No. 1 did not assist in the capacity of a producer.

The counsel for the Defendants claimed that the sound recordings were the work of a producer, which in this case was Defendant No. 1. They also claimed that the present suit was filed back in 2004, and was thus barred by limitation as it was 13 years after the preacher’s death in 1990. The Court stated that this argument did not hold water, because the copyright was valid till 1/1/1991, i.e. 60 years from beginning of the next calendar year after the death of Pulavar Keeran. The Court analysed Section 2(d), 13, 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 2 of the Berne Convention. The Court held that the copyright holder would be the Plaintiff, and granted a permanent injunction against the Defendants, restraining them from using, selling, distributing, broadcasting as a whole or exploiting the literary works in isolation (transcript of speeches) through any media.

Citation: Mrs. Sellappapa Keeran vs S. Vijayaraghavan & Anr., Decided by The Madras High Court on 1st September, 2021, available: at  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1932971/

This post is brought to you by BananaIP’s Consulting & Strategy Department

About BananaIP’s Consulting & Strategy Department

BananaIP’s Consulting & Strategy Department has the experience of helping companies use IP for business and competitive advantage. Companies regularly seek their assistance, advise and opinions on identifying/mining inventions and creations, conducting IP audits, protecting IP assets appropriately, launching risk free products, managing litigation for business benefit, resolving disputes out of Court, making money out of IP, enforcing IP, and licensing transactions. If you have any questions, or need any clarifications, please write to [email protected] .

Please note that these case updates have been put together from different sources, primary and secondary, and BananaIP’s reporters may not have verified all the decisions published in the bulletin. You may write to [email protected]   for corrections and take down.

You May Also Like

Value of IP for Small and Medium Enterprises

Choosing the Right IP Name/Business Representation

Leave a comment cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

• 한국어 ( Korean )
• 日本語 ( Japanese )
• 中文 ( Chinese (Simplified) )

Law.asia home

Follow law.asia.

• Business law digest
• Deal digest
• Dispute digest
• Editorial board
• Expert briefing
• Intelligence report
• Market pulse
• Practitioner’s Perspective
• The Briefing

Vantage point

• What’s the deal?

Correspondents

• Practitioner's Perspective

Focus on the Spotify case

MANOJ K SINGH and SAMRIDH AHUJA explore compulsory licensing in India’s copyright regime

The eagerly awaited music streaming app, Spotify, launched in India on 28 February 2019 mired in multiple controversies as music labels Warner Music Group and Saregama India filed for injunction; Saregama was successful in its pursuit.

Spotify agreed to remove Saregama’s entire catalogue from its offerings in India. A large number of interested parties including broadcasters, labels, artists, and consumers will be affected by how these issues unfold.

Spotify and Warner were previously involved in protracted negotiations regarding the terms of the licensing agreement, but were unsuccessful in reaching a consensus. Instead of going through the voluntarily licensing route, Spotify decided to obtain a statutory licence through section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Section 31D was introduced by the 2012 Amendment to the Copyright Act, which enabled broadcasters to communicate to the public, a work that has already been published, after payment of royalty as fixed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). It must be noted that, unlike the Patents Act in India, there is no requirement on the licensee to first try to obtain a voluntary licence over the subject matter from the copyright owner.

INTERNET STREAMING

Although when this amendment was first introduced, the interest of radio broadcasters was kept in consideration while introducing section 31D, an office memorandum by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (earlier known as Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, or DIPP) in 2016 extended the ambit of section 31D to include internet broadcasters.

The validity of this memorandum has been questioned time and again, as inclusion of internet broadcasters under the ambit of broadcasters per se clearly was an act of creative statutory interpretation, or a quasi-legislative act, by the then DIPP. The term “broadcast” is defined in section 2(ff), where it refers to “communication to the public”, whereas internet streaming services like Spotify or Youtube go beyond communication to the public as they also indulge in making available to the public and downloading (reproduction). They also get the option to reproduce the copyrighted work in the form of downloading and sharing.

You must be a subscriber subscriber subscriber subscriber to read this content, please subscribe subscribe subscribe subscribe today. For group subscribers, please click here to access. Interested in group subscription? Please contact us .

你需要登录去解锁本文内容。欢迎 注册账号 。如果想阅读月刊所有文章，欢迎 成为我们的订阅会员 成为我们的订阅会员 。 已有集团订阅，可 点击此处 继续浏览。 如对集团订阅感兴趣，请 联络我们 。, related articles more from author.

Philippines stays off EU IP watchlist

Philippines bridging gender gap, preserving cultural heritage

Former Juris partner Neeraj Dubey launches own firm

Most popular.

Applying fair use doctrine to generative AI

Applying for a VASP licence in BVI

Right place and right time

Product-by-process claim lesson in appeal judgment

Market pulse.

Tanay Agarwal secures promotion to TT&A partnership

Amit Aggarwal takes the reins at SNG

Specialist Abhiraj Arora to boost Saraf’s securities practice

New act brings telecoms up to speed

Supreme Court to set tax regime for online gaming

RBI’s draft directive for housing finance companies

Steady as she goes

Tax specialists Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan provide an analysis of the tax policies unveiled during the budget

Deals of the Year 2023

50 standout deals and disputes of 2023

2024: Spheres of influence

Legal professionals predict the key developments that will shape the Asian region in 2024

Practitioner’s perspectives

Court confirms SEP holders’ rights to interim security payments

IP strategies in the auto sector

Collaborative agreements and other key IP trends that have emerged in the automotive industry

Singapore blooms as hub for dispute resolution

Maxwell Chambers CEO talks about why Singapore continues to flourish as a prominent arbitration hub

First time? Don’t pAnIc!

Smita Rajmohan, a counsel at Autodesk, explains how to introduce AI into your company

Commercial Litigation Lawyer (2-4 PQE) – 16931/VTA

Legal Counsel (TW based role)

• Policy on advertising & sponsorship
• Terms & conditions of use
• Privacy Policy

Follow us on WhatsApp for latest updates

AI Summary to Minimize your effort

Copyright Infringement: Meaning, Examples, Cases in India

Updated on : Oct 28th, 2022

11 min read

Copyright provides exclusive rights to the copyright holder, such as the right to distribute, reproduce, perform or display the copyright-protected work. The usage of copyright-protected work without the authorisation/permission of the copyright owner results in copyright infringement.

Thus, copyright infringement means the unauthorised use of someone’s copyrighted work for a profit. It results in the infringement of certain rights of the copyright holder, such as the right to distribute, reproduce, perform or display the protected work.

Rights of a Copyright Owner

The name of the author or publisher that appears in the copies of dramatic, literary, artistic or musical work is presumed to be the author/copyright owner of the work. A copyright owner has the following rights in the copyrighted work:

• Produce the work in public
• Publish the work
• Perform the work in public
• Translate the work
• Make a cinematograph film or a record of the work
• Broadcast the work
• Make an adaptation of the work
• Make copies of the work and distribute them
• Prevent others from unauthorised usage of the copyrighted work

Copyright Infringement in India

As per the Copyright Act, 1957, the use of a copyrighted work without the permission of the owner results in copyright infringement. Infringement occurs when a third person unintentionally or intentionally uses/copies the work of another without giving credit. It is usually classified into two categories, i.e. primary and secondary infringement.

Primary infringement occurs when there is an actual act of copying, while secondary infringement occurs when unauthorised dealings take place, such as selling or importing pirated books, etc. In the case of secondary infringement, the infringer will know about infringement, while in the case of primary infringement, the infringer may or may not know about infringement.

The following elements should be present for copyright infringement:

• The copyrighted work is the original creation of the author
• The copyright infringement work is actually copied from the work of the author

Instances Where Copyright Infringement Occurs

As per the Copyright Act, 1957, a copyright infringement occurs in India in the following cases:

• Copies of copyrighted work are made for hire/sale without authority or permission, such as online piracy
• Infringing copies are distributed for personal and trade gains
• Copyrighted work is performed in a public place
• Infringing copies are imported into India
• Public exhibition of infringing copies prejudicial to the owner
• Reproduction of a dramatic, literary, artistic or musical work other than in the form of a cinematograph film
• Creating a recording embodying the copyrighted sound recording
• Copy of the cinematographic film

Copyright Infringement Examples

• When someone downloads movies from an unauthorised source, it will be copyright infringement.
• When a person uses a television serial clip in a youtube video without giving credit and publishes the serial clip on youtube, it amounts to copyright infringement. 
• When someone uses a song’s music as background music in his/her song, it results in copyright infringement.

Copyright Infringement Cases

Yrf vs sri sai ganesh productions.

In this case, YRF filed a copyright infringement suit against Sri Sai Ganesh Productions on the grounds that it copied their movie ‘Band Baaja Baaraat’ and produced ‘Jabardasht’ movie which had substantial and material similarities in terms of concept, theme, character, plot, story, script and expression amongst other things. The court extended the test of originality since the films are protected like original works, to distinguish between the two films based on ‘foundation, substance and kernel’ and understand the average moviegoer’s viewpoint as to whether they would have an impression that one work was a copy of the other. The court held that Sri Sai Ganesh Productions had blatantly copied the YRF film’s essential, fundamental and distinctive features, resulting in copyright infringement.

Hawkins Cooker Ltd. vs Magicook Appliances

Hawkins Cooker Ltd sued Magicook Appliances on the grounds of illicitly using their label registered under the Copyright Act, 1957, which they used on their renowned pressure cooker line.  The court deterred Magicook Appliances from using the Hawkins Cooker Ltd cookbooks. It ordered Magicook Appliances to deliver damages to Hawkins Cooker Ltd company for all alleged books, products, and articles employed by them in manufacturing the offending goods.

Super Cassettes Industries Limited vs YouTube and Google

Super Cassettes Industries Limited (SCIL) claimed that the YouTube business model makes a substantial profit from using the copyrighted work uploaded without approval from the copyright owners and without paying a royalty for the same. The court opined that YouTube, the video streaming giant and Google should stop distributing, reproducing, displaying or transmitting on their portal any audio-visual works in the exclusive ownership of the SCIL.  

What Does Not Amount to Copyright Infringement?

Certain acts do not result in copyright infringement. Such acts/uses of copyrighted works are allowed without permission from the copyright owner. The following are the acts that do not result in copyright infringement in India are: 

• Personal or private use, including research
• Review or criticism of the work
• Reporting of current affairs and events, including the lecture delivered in public
• Usage of the computer programme for which it was supplied  
• Make backup copies as a temporary protection against destruction, loss or damage
• Storage of a performance or work
• Reproduction of work in a judicial proceeding
• Reproduction or publication of a work prepared by the Secretariat of a Legislature for the exclusive use of the Legislature members
• Reproduction of work in a certified copy supplied or made as per law
• Recitation or reading in public of reasonable extracts from a published dramatic or literary work
• Publication in a collection composed of non-copyright matter intended for instructional use of short passages from published dramatic or literary works
• Reproduction of a work by a teacher in the course of instruction, as part of the questions to be answered in an examination, or as answers to such questions
• Performance of a dramatic, literary or musical work in an educational institution by the students and staff or reproduction of a sound recording and cinematograph film when the audience is limited to staff and students
• Causing a recording to be heard in public in any residential premises in an enclosed hall or room meant for the common use of residents or as part of the activities of a club or organisation not conducted/established for profit
• Performance of a dramatic, literary or musical work by an amateur society or club, if the performance is given for the benefit of a religious institution or to a non-paying audience
• Reproduction in a magazine, newspaper or other periodicals of an article on current political, economic, religious or social topics, unless the article author has expressly reserved the right of reproduction
• Reproduction of a work for private study or research or publishing an unpublished dramatic, literary or musical work kept in a museum, library or other institutions to which the public has access
• Publishing or making a drawing, engraving, painting, display or photograph of a work of architecture
• Inclusion of an artistic work situated permanently in a public place or premises to which the public has access in a cinematograph film if such inclusion is by way of incidental or background to the principal matters represented in the film
• Making a three-dimensional object from a two-dimensional artistic work for industrial application
• Reconstruction of a structure or building as per the architectural plans or drawings

Remedies For Copyright Infringement

The authors/copyright owners can take legal action against a person or entity infringing their copyrighted works. The copyright owner can file a civil case in a court having jurisdiction and is entitled to remedies by way of damages, injunctions and accounts. A criminal suit can also be filed in a court of a First Class Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate.

In the case of copyright infringement by an artificial judicial person like a company or Limited Liability Partnership (LLP), the company/LLP and all persons in charge at the time of committing the offence or responsible for the conduct of the business would be liable for the infringement. 

Civil Remedies

Where a copyrighted work has been infringed, the copyright owner is entitled to remedies of injunction, damages and accounts. However, when the infringer proves that he/she was unaware and had no reasonable ground for believing that copyright existed in work at the infringement date, the copyright owner will not be entitled to any remedy except an injunction.

Injunction: Injunction is the effective remedy for copyright infringement. An injunction means a judicial process through which the infringer is restrained to continue the infringing acts or is ordered to restore the position which stood before the infringement.

Damages: Damages are compensation provided to the copyright owner. The purpose of ordering to provide the damages to the copyright holder is to restore the owner to the earlier position. There are various factors to determine the damage amount. Generally, the damages are the amount the copyright holder would have gotten from the infringing acts if the infringer had obtained the licence for such acts. Various other factors, such as loss of reputation, loss of profit to the copyright holder, decrease in the sale of the copyright holder’s work, etc., determine the damages amount.

Accounts: The infringer can be asked to submit an account of profits made from the sale of the copied works and pay such an amount to the copyright owner.

Criminal Prosecution for Copyright Infringement

When a person knowingly infringes or abets the infringing act of a copyrighted work, then the offence is a criminal offence under the Copyright Act, 1957. When the copyright owner files a criminal suit for copyright infringement, the minimum punishment for the infringement is imprisonment for six months, which can extend to three years, with a minimum fine of Rs. 50,000, which can extend up to Rs.2 lakhs. 

In the case of a subsequent and second conviction, the punishment is imprisonment for a minimum of one year, extending to three years and a fine of Rs.1 lakhs, extending to Rs.2 lakhs. Any police officer (not below the sub-inspector rank) can seize the infringing copies without a warrant when the police officer is satisfied that a copyright infringement offence in any work has been committed and produce them before the Magistrate.

Copyright aims to protect the author’s rights and provide them with economic benefits. The scope of copyright protection extends to all original works which demand creativity, including computer software and databases.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are solely for information purposes. No attorney-client relationship is created when you access or use the site or the materials. The information presented on this site does not constitute legal or professional advice and should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for legal advice from an attorney licensed in your state.

About the Author

Mayashree Acharya

I am an advocate by profession and have a keen interest in writing. I write articles in various categories, from legal, business, personal finance, and investments to government schemes. I put words in a simplified manner and write easy-to-understand articles. Read more

Quick Summary

Was this summary helpful.

Clear offers taxation & financial solutions to individuals, businesses, organizations & chartered accountants in India. Clear serves 1.5+ Million happy customers, 20000+ CAs & tax experts & 10000+ businesses across India.

Efiling Income Tax Returns(ITR) is made easy with Clear platform. Just upload your form 16, claim your deductions and get your acknowledgment number online. You can efile income tax return on your income from salary, house property, capital gains, business & profession and income from other sources. Further you can also file TDS returns, generate Form-16, use our Tax Calculator software, claim HRA, check refund status and generate rent receipts for Income Tax Filing.

CAs, experts and businesses can get GST ready with Clear GST software & certification course. Our GST Software helps CAs, tax experts & business to manage returns & invoices in an easy manner. Our Goods & Services Tax course includes tutorial videos, guides and expert assistance to help you in mastering Goods and Services Tax. Clear can also help you in getting your business registered for Goods & Services Tax Law.

Save taxes with Clear by investing in tax saving mutual funds (ELSS) online. Our experts suggest the best funds and you can get high returns by investing directly or through SIP. Download Black by ClearTax App to file returns from your mobile phone.

Cleartax is a product by Defmacro Software Pvt. Ltd.

Company Policy Terms of use

Data Center

SSL Certified Site

128-bit encryption

New Case Study: Overlap Between Industrial Design and Copyright Protection in India

In this new case study, we explore why in India copyright and industrial design protections are not complementary and how to act in order to avoid problems with the protection of your designs.

At the core of the case study is an independent European boutique designer, who - having developed goodwill and a reputation associated with a quality and unique clothing design in Europe - decided to expand its business operations to India as it had identified a high demand for international good quality designer products. From its experience in the European market, the designer was aware that clothing designs and sketches are automatically protected under copyright laws from the moment of their creation as mandated by the Berne Convention. The EU designer saw that India was also signatory of the Berne Convention, and therefore did not register its designs in India.

However, as the EU designer’s brand gained a growing reputation in India, it came to its attention that a local brand had started to copy its designs and sell look-alike clothes for substantially lower prices.

Share this page

• ADR (arbitration)
• Capital Markets
• Competition
• Corporate Law
• Environmental
• Technology Law
• Infrastructure & Project Finance
• NRI Legal Services
• Data Protection and Privacy
• Intellectual Property
• Labour & Employment
• Legal Metrology
• Mergers & Acquisition
• Real Estate
• Company Secretarial Services
• Property Disputes
• Energy, Mining & Infrastructure
• Newsletters
• Corporate & Commercial
• Infrastructure & Project Finance

Intellectual Property Rights

Copyright Infringement In India

By -  King Stubb & Kasiva on  August 15, 2023

Copyright is a collection of rights that are vested in the creator of the original work of authorship such as any literary work, music, movies, or software. Copyright is important for a variety of reasons including for the legal protection of one's work, for helping the author to exercise control over their work, and to provide ownership to the creator of the work. Copyright encourages the creators to come up with creative ideas. It is also granted to artistic work which includes painting, sculpture, diagrammatic representation as well as drawing. It is provided to all kinds of original literary, artistic, musical, or dramatic, sound recordings as well as cinematography.

The use of the internet has many underlying threats. And one of the biggest among those is copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of someone's work to make a profit resulting in the Copyright Infringement; which can mean infringement of certain rights of the Copyright holder, such as the right to distribute; reproduce; perform or even display the work that is protected.

Though it is not mandatory to get the copyright of the work registered; it is advisable as it works as valid proof during times of dispute. Although, the question is what remedies does the law provide?

Table of Contents

When a copyright is deemed to be infringed.

Section 51 of the Copyright Act [1] states the acts that are deemed as an infringement of copyright. These Acts are:

• When a person without obtaining the permission of the copyright owner does any act that only the copyright owner is entitled to do.
• When a person permits a place to be used for the communication, selling, distribution, or exhibition of an infringing work, unless that person was not aware, or had no reason to believe that such a permission was resulting in the infringement of copyright.
• When a person imports infringing copies of a work.
• When a person, without obtaining permission from the copyright owner, goes ahead to reproduce their work.

Copyright infringement has two elements:

• First, the work was the original creation of the author.
• The defendant copied the work of the author.

Some common infringement issues are as follows:

• Plagiarism: Plagiarism occurs when someone copies the copyrighted material of the other and pretends that to have been their original work.
• Ownership: When a person is an employer; then in that case; it is the organization that has the copyright over the material but in case the person is just a freelance contractor then it is simply the person who is the sole owner of the copyrighted material.

Copyright Infringement can be classified into two categories; i.e.,

• secondary infringement.

Primary infringement refers to the act of copying the work of the copyright holder. The types of primary infringement are as follows:

• Substantial Taking: This refers to copying of a substantial part of someone's work like copying the catchy phrase of a lyricist. In this case, any minor alterations made by the person in the original copyright holder's work will not
• Casual Connection: This occurs when there is a similarity between the work of the copyright owner and the infringer.

Secondary infringement on the other hand refers to the infringement of the copyrighted work without copying the same directly. The types of secondary infringement are:

• Providing a place for copyright infringement: Although, the place has to be provided for receiving “profits”. In case an NGO lets the place; then in that case it cannot be held liable.
• Importing the infringing copies: Importing the infringement work of the copyright owner also comes under secondary infringement as this is prohibited in India.
• Selling infringing copies: In case a person sells the copies that amount to copyright infringement; then in that case also it would amount to infringement of copyright.
• Distributing infringing copies: In case a person distributes the infringing copies; even in that case it will amount to copyright infringement.

Copyright Infringement Cases

• In the case of YRF vs. Sri Sai Ganesh Productions [2] ; the copyright infringement suit was filed against Sri Sai Ganesh Productions because they copied the movie Band Baja Barat’ and produced the movie ‘ Jabardasht ’; and the ground was that these two movies had substantial similarities; in the term of concept, theme, character, plot, story, script as well as expression among many other things. The court held that Sri Sai Ganesh Productions had blatantly copied the essentials of the movie ‘ Band Baja Barat’ resulting in Copyright Infringement.
• Further, in the case of Hawkins Cooker Ltd. vs. Magicook Appliances [3] ; the court deterred Magicook Appliances from using the cookbooks of Hawkins Cooker Ltd, as that would lead to copyright infringement.

Remedies For Copyright Infringement [4]

The authors or copyright owners can take legal action against the person or entity that infringes their copyright.

• Injunction: An injunction means a judicial order that restrains the infringer from continuing the infringing acts or is ordered for restoring the position that was there before the infringement.
• Damages: Damages are the compensation that is provided to the copyright owner. Damages are provided on account of various factors, such as loss of reputation, loss of profit to the copyright holder, and decrease in the sales of the copyright holders' work which determine the damages amount.
• Criminal Prosecution for Copyright Infringement: For the first-time offense; the minimum punishment is imprisonment for six months, which can extend to a period of three years, it has a minimum fine amount of Rs. 50, 000 which can again extend up to Rs. 2 lakhs.

Further, in case of a subsequent and second conviction; the punishment is imprisonment for a minimum of one year. This can extend to three years. Further, the minimum fine amount is 1 lakh; which can extend up to Rs. 2 lakhs.

The protection of IP Rights is important to make sure that your original work is not exploited. It is highly important to take the advice of a copyright lawyer to have full protection at every stage of the copyright life cycle. And even though registering a copyright is not important; frequently doing it is important to have solid evidence in case of a legal dispute. Also, before registration of the copyright, in the case of logos, it is important to conduct a proper search as a resemblance with a previous mark or logo will substantially impact the copyright in case of a legal dispute.

Furthermore; it is highly important to make sure that good legal advice is procured during the whole life cycle of the copyright; hence; for any further advice on the matters of the copyright dispute or registration; kindly get in contact with the details provided in the CONTACT US section with the firm.

What are the penalties for copyright infringement in India?

In India, copyright infringement can result in both civil and criminal penalties. Civil remedies include injunctions, damages, and accounts. Criminal prosecution can lead to imprisonment for a certain period and fines, with the severity depending on factors like the nature and extent of the infringement.

How can copyright infringement be proven in court?

To prove copyright infringement, the copyright holder must establish ownership of the copyrighted work and demonstrate that the alleged infringing party copied a substantial part of the work without authorization. Evidence of the original work, similarities, timelines, and any available communication can play a crucial role in establishing infringement in court.

What is the procedure for copyright assignment in India?

A copyright assignment only happens after a written assignment between the assignor (copyright holder) and the assignee. Such a transfer can only be done either wholly or partially for such rights and for a predefined period of time. This assignment of right can be for a pre-existing work as well as for a future work. When a license is regarding any copyright in a future work, then in that case, the license shall take effect only when the work comes into existence.

[1] The Copyright Act 1957, Sec. 51, No. 14 of 1957, Acts of Parliament (India).

[2] YRF vs. Sri Sai Ganesh Productions; CS (COMM) 1329/2016

[3] Hawkins Cooker Ltd. vs. Magicook Appliances ; AIR 2015 Cal 150

[4] The Copyright Act 1957, Sec. 55, No. 14 of 1957, Acts of Parliament (India).

King Stubb & Kasiva , Advocates & Attorneys Click Here to Get in Touch New Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Hyderabad | Mangalore | Pune | Kochi Tel: +91 11 41032969 | Email: [email protected]

Liked this Article ?

Join our list to receive more such updates, by entering the email address you agree to our privacy policy., king stubb & kasiva.

Offices In - New Delhi | Bangalore | Mumbai Chennai | Hyderabad | Kochi | Pune | Mangalore

About People Expertise Specialised Expertise Insights Updates 

Contact Us Careers Alumni

© 2023 King Stubb & Kasiva

• Internet ›

Cyber Crime & Security

Industry-specific and extensively researched technical data (partially from exclusive partnerships). A paid subscription is required for full access.

• Digital copyright infringement offences reported in India 2022, by leading state

Number of digital copyright infringement offences reported across India in 2022, by leading state

• Immediate access to 1m+ statistics
• Incl. source references
• Download as PNG, PDF, XLS, PPT

Additional Information

Show sources information Show publisher information Use Ask Statista Research Service

December 2023

Figures are as per the data provided by individual states and union territories.

Other statistics on the topic Cyber security in India

IT Services

• Cybersecurity market revenues worldwide 2020-2030
• Cybercrime encounter rate in selected countries 2022
• Global cybersecurity spending 2017-2022
• Incidents of cyber attacks in India 2015-2022

To download this statistic in XLS format you need a Statista Account

To download this statistic in PNG format you need a Statista Account

To download this statistic in PDF format you need a Statista Account

To download this statistic in PPT format you need a Statista Account

As a Premium user you get access to the detailed source references and background information about this statistic.

As a Premium user you get access to background information and details about the release of this statistic.

As soon as this statistic is updated, you will immediately be notified via e-mail.

… to incorporate the statistic into your presentation at any time.

You need at least a Starter Account to use this feature.

• Immediate access to statistics, forecasts & reports
• Usage and publication rights
• Download in various formats

You only have access to basic statistics. This statistic is not included in your account.

• Instant access  to 1m statistics
• Download  in XLS, PDF & PNG format
• Detailed  references

Business Solutions including all features.

Statistics on " Cybersecurity in India "

• All-time biggest online data breaches 2024
• Average total cost per data breach worldwide 2023, by country or region
• Number of cyber crimes reported in India 2012-2022
• Number of cyber crimes related to data theft across India 2016-2022
• Digital forgery incidents reported in India 2022, by leading state
• Online banking frauds reported in India 2022, by state
• Cybersecurity market size forecast India 2023-2028
• Information security and risk management spending in India 2022-2023, by segment
• Government budget for cybersecurity India 2023
• Size of cybersecurity workforce India 2021-2023
• Revenue of Palo Alto Networks worldwide 2015-2023
• Revenue of Juniper Networks 2013-2023
• NortonLifeLock: net revenue 2007-2023
• Total revenue of Quick Heal Technologies 2020-2023
• Leading cyber threats to Indian businesses 2024
• Data breach cost to Indian businesses 2023
• Changing cybersecurity spending among Indian businesses 2024
• Attitude towards AI adoption among CISOs India 2023
• Leading regulations to ensure cybersecurity in businesses India 2023
• Breakdown of security incidents handled by CERT-In India 2022
• Operations of CERT-In India 2022 by type
• Overall cybersecurity readiness of organizations India 2022
• Cybersecurity readiness of organizations India 2022, by pillar

Other statistics that may interest you Cybersecurity in India

Global outlook

• Basic Statistic Cybercrime encounter rate in selected countries 2022
• Basic Statistic All-time biggest online data breaches 2024
• Premium Statistic Average total cost per data breach worldwide 2023, by country or region
• Premium Statistic Cybersecurity market revenues worldwide 2020-2030
• Premium Statistic Global cybersecurity spending 2017-2022

Cyber crime in India

• Premium Statistic Number of cyber crimes reported in India 2012-2022
• Premium Statistic Incidents of cyber attacks in India 2015-2022
• Premium Statistic Number of cyber crimes related to data theft across India 2016-2022
• Premium Statistic Digital forgery incidents reported in India 2022, by leading state
• Premium Statistic Digital copyright infringement offences reported in India 2022, by leading state
• Premium Statistic Online banking frauds reported in India 2022, by state

Cyber security

• Premium Statistic Cybersecurity market size forecast India 2023-2028
• Premium Statistic Information security and risk management spending in India 2022-2023, by segment
• Premium Statistic Government budget for cybersecurity India 2023
• Premium Statistic Size of cybersecurity workforce India 2021-2023

Market leaders

• Premium Statistic Revenue of Palo Alto Networks worldwide 2015-2023
• Basic Statistic Revenue of Juniper Networks 2013-2023
• Premium Statistic NortonLifeLock: net revenue 2007-2023
• Premium Statistic Total revenue of Quick Heal Technologies 2020-2023

Business perception

• Premium Statistic Leading cyber threats to Indian businesses 2024
• Premium Statistic Data breach cost to Indian businesses 2023
• Premium Statistic Changing cybersecurity spending among Indian businesses 2024
• Premium Statistic Attitude towards AI adoption among CISOs India 2023
• Premium Statistic Leading regulations to ensure cybersecurity in businesses India 2023

Readiness and resilience

• Premium Statistic Breakdown of security incidents handled by CERT-In India 2022
• Premium Statistic Operations of CERT-In India 2022 by type
• Premium Statistic Overall cybersecurity readiness of organizations India 2022
• Premium Statistic Cybersecurity readiness of organizations India 2022, by pillar

Further related statistics

• Premium Statistic Cyber crimes motivated by revenge in India 2021, by leading state
• Premium Statistic Number of privacy violation cyber crimes reported in India 2021, by leading state
• Premium Statistic Cyber blackmailing offences reported in India 2021, by leading state
• Premium Statistic Digital publication of obscene acts offences India 2021, by leading state
• Premium Statistic Fake news propagation offences reported in India 2022, by leading state
• Premium Statistic Online cheating incidents reported in India 2021, by leading state
• Premium Statistic Number of online impersonation offences reported in India 2021, by leading state
• Premium Statistic Fake cyber profile offences in India 2021, by leading state
• Premium Statistic Number of child pornography offences reported in India 2022, by leading state
• Premium Statistic ATM fraud incidents reported in India 2021, by leading state
• Premium Statistic Number of ransomware offences reported in India 2021, by leading state
• Premium Statistic Number of OTP frauds reported in India 2021, by leading state
• Premium Statistic Number of offences reported for stolen IT resources in India 2021, by leading state
• Premium Statistic Anger as motive for cyber crimes in India 2021, by leading state
• Premium Statistic Slander as motive for cyber crime in India 2021, by leading state
• Premium Statistic Payment demands of law firms in file sharing cease and desist letters in Germany 2014
• Premium Statistic Law firms sending the most cease and desist letters for file sharing in Germany 2014
• Premium Statistic Number of copyright law violation cases in Taiwan 2012-2022
• Premium Statistic Amount of time Hungarian parents spend discussing online safety with teenagers 2020

Further Content: You might find this interesting as well

• Cyber crimes motivated by revenge in India 2021, by leading state
• Number of privacy violation cyber crimes reported in India 2021, by leading state
• Cyber blackmailing offences reported in India 2021, by leading state
• Digital publication of obscene acts offences India 2021, by leading state
• Fake news propagation offences reported in India 2022, by leading state
• Online cheating incidents reported in India 2021, by leading state
• Number of online impersonation offences reported in India 2021, by leading state
• Fake cyber profile offences in India 2021, by leading state
• Number of child pornography offences reported in India 2022, by leading state
• ATM fraud incidents reported in India 2021, by leading state
• Number of ransomware offences reported in India 2021, by leading state
• Number of OTP frauds reported in India 2021, by leading state
• Number of offences reported for stolen IT resources in India 2021, by leading state
• Anger as motive for cyber crimes in India 2021, by leading state
• Slander as motive for cyber crime in India 2021, by leading state
• Payment demands of law firms in file sharing cease and desist letters in Germany 2014
• Law firms sending the most cease and desist letters for file sharing in Germany 2014
• Number of copyright law violation cases in Taiwan 2012-2022
• Amount of time Hungarian parents spend discussing online safety with teenagers 2020