High CourtsSingle Bench(2016) 07 CAL CK 0062

Hi Tech Chemicals Private Limited vs Allied Metallurgical Products Private Limited

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 18 July 2016 · Citation: (2016) 3 MIPR 323

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjib Banerjee, J.
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
GA No. 3526 of 2014 with CS No. 391 of 2014

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 403 words

Sanjib Banerjee, J. - On this interlocutory petition in a suit for infringement of copyright, an ad interim order was passed on January 21, 2015 requiring the defendant to furnish accounts to Advocate-on-Record for the plaintiffs.

2.

The relevant order, however, did not deal with the merits of the case.

3.

In short, it is the plaintiffs� case that the plaintiffs held a patent in respect of a product which has lapsed because of the failure to pay the renewal fees at the end of the first ten years. The defendant has applied for a patent in the same or a similar product. The plaintiffs claim that in seeking to manufacture the defendant�s product, the defendant has infringed the plaintiffs� copyright in the drawings pertaining thereto.

4.

However, the owner of the copyright is not a party to the proceedings. At paragraph 4 of the petition, the plaintiffs have averred that "the industrial drawing is an original artistic work of the said Berthold Stilkerieg on which he has a copyright." Berthold Stilkerieg is not a party to the present action and the plaintiffs have not been able to show any document under which the copyright in the industrial drawings has been assigned by the owner thereof to the plaintiffs or either of them.

5.

Since the plaintiffs have failed to make out any semblance of a prima facie case of infringement of copyright, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any order. It is elementary that the owner of the copyright should be a party to an action for infringement. Further, assignment of copyright cannot be otherwise than in writing and the plaintiffs have not been able to demonstrate assignment of the copyright in the industrial drawings in their favour.

6.

GA 3526 of 2014 is dismissed.

7.

The plaintiffs will pay costs assessed at 500 GM to the defendant.

8.

Since the defendant has agreed to waive service of the writ of summons, the defendant should file the written statement within six weeks from date. Documents should be discovered within four weeks thereupon and inspection completed forthwith thereafter. The parties should take all steps so that the suit is ready for hearing in all aspects and the matter can be transferred before the Bench hearing suits immediately after the puja vacation.

9.

Urgent website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.