Journal of Intellectual Property Rights

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Theoretical Underpinnings Of Copyright And Design Laws Post-krishika Lulla And Godrej Sara Lee: Decisions Of The Supreme Court Of India


Affiliations
1 Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat — 131001, Haryana,, India
2 National Law Institute University, Bhopal — 462 044, Madhya Pradesh, India
 

This Paper seeks to build upon the method and findings of ‘Theoretical Underpinnings of Copyright and Design Laws: Decisions of the Supreme Court of India’1 with a view to examine the theoretical underpinnings of copyright law post Krishika Lulla2 and design law post Godrej Sara Lee3 as discovered or constructed in the decisions of the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court). An analysis of the reported decisions on copyright law reveals that: (i) validity of The Copyright Actor of any provisions of the Act was not in question in any of the decisions; (ii) constitutional validity of Rule 29 (4) of The Copyright Rules, 2013 was in question in one of the decisions in which the Supreme Court showing deference to the legislative wisdom reversed the decision of the High Court on the ground that the High Court has overreached its remit and has re-drafted the rule; (iii) both Labour and Utilitarian Theories, and not any other theory, have been simultaneously invoked by the Supreme Court; and (iv) on an average, the Court has decided 1.66 copyright cases in a year; or one copyright case in 251 days, or in .68 (point six eight) years. It appears that the Supreme Court was invoking both Labour and Utilitarian Theories mechanically without going into the clear differences between the two. It has been previously4 argued that the Court should have applied judicially manageable standards to rigorously scrutinize the theoretical underpinnings of copyright law from all possible angles. This Paper reiterates this argument for nothing seems to have changed in the judicial approach when it comes to theoretical underpinnings of copyright law. An analysis of decisions on design law reveals that: (i) only one decision has been reported on design law and the Court has not gone into the question of theoretical underpinnings; (ii) in four decisions there is only a reference to The Designs Act but these decisions have not decided any question of design law; and (iii) on an average, the Court has decided .08 (point zero eight) design cases in a year; or one design case in 4,595 days, or in12.58 years.

Keywords

Labour Theory, Utilitarian Theory, Natural Right Theory, The Copyright Act, 1957, The Copyright Rules 1958, The Copyright Rules 2013, The Designs Act, 2000, per Incuriam, Theoretical Underpinnings, The Constitution Of India, Article 145(3), Supreme Court Of India, Presumption Of Constitutionality, Social Planning Theory, Ratiocination, Intellectual Property, Publici Juris, Draftsmanship, Craftsmanship, Amendment, Exclusive Right, Negative Right.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Raza A, Theoretical Underpinnings of Copyright and Design Laws: Decisions of the Supreme Court of India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 26 (4) (2021) 220–234.

  • Krishika Lulla v ShyamVithal Rao Dev katta 2015 (10) SCALE 718.

  • Godrej Sara Lee Limited v Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty Ltd (2010) 2 SCC 535.

  • Raza A, Theoretical Underpinnings of Copyright and Design Laws: Decisions of the Supreme Court of India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 26 (4) (2021) 220–234; Raza A, Theoretical Underpinnings of Patent Law: Decisions of the Supreme Court of India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 27 (4) (2022) 285–289; Raza A and Alam G, Theoretical Underpinnings of Trademark Law: Decisions of the Supreme Court of India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 27 (5) (2022) 351–366.

  • The Copyright Act, 1957 (Act 14 of 1957).

  • The Designs Act, 2000 (Act 16 of 2000).

  • Raza A, Theoretical Underpinnings of Patent Law: Decisions of the Supreme Court of India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 27 (4) (2022) 285–289.

  • Raza A and Alam G, Theoretical Underpinnings of Trademark Law: Decisions of the Supreme Court of India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 27 (5) (2022) 351– 366.

  • S D Containers Indore v Mold-Tek Packaging Limited (2021) 3 SCC 289. Justice Hemant Gupta penned down the unanimous judgment of the Court.

  • Panesar S, Theories of Private Property in Modern Property Law, Denning Law Journal, 15 (2000) 113–138; Hettinger C H, Justifying intellectual property, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 18 (1989) 31.

  • The Copyright Rules, 1958, SRO 270 dated 21 January 1958 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3 (i) dated 21 January 1958.

  • The Copyright Rules, 2013, G.S.R 172 (E) dated 14 March 2013 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, dated 14 March 2013.

  • The Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2021, G.S.R 225 (E) dated 30 March 2021 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, dated 30 March 2021.

  • (2017) 1 SCC 1.

  • (2020) 5 SCC 353.

  • (2019) 2 SCC 104.

  • 2022 SCC OnLine SC 668.

  • (2018) 11 SCC 700.

  • (2017) 11 SCC 437.

  • (2017) 11 SCC 437, 449.

  • (2008) 13 SCC 30.

  • (2017) 11 SCC 437, 450.

  • (2017) 11 SCC 437, 451.

  • (2018) 9 SCC 220.

  • (2018) 8 SCC 804.

  • (2019) 2 SCC 104.

  • (2019) 2 SCC 104, 169.

  • For detail, see Raza A, Theoretical Underpinnings of Copyright and Design Laws: Decisions of the Supreme Court of India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 26 (4) (2021) 220–234, 226.

  • (2008) 13 SCC 30.

  • Copinger and James S, Copyright, Volume 1 (Sweet & Maxwell, London), 2005, paras 2–5, p. 27.

  • Entertainment Network (India) Ltd v Super Cassette Industries Ltd (2008) 13 SCC 30, 30.

  • (2002) 4 SCC 388, S P Bharucha, CJI, S S M Quadri, U C Banerjee, S N Variava and Shivaraj V Patil, JJ.

  • (2002) 4 SCC 388, 406.

  • AIR 1955 SC 661, Sudhi Ranjan Das, Acting CJI, Vivian Bose, N H Bhagwati, B Jagannadhadas, T L Venkatarama Aiyar, B P Sinha and Syed Jaffer Imam, JJ.

  • AIR 1955 SC 661, 744.

  • (2020) 5 SCC 353.

  • (2022) 3 SCC 321.

  • (2022) 3 SCC 321, 373.

  • (2022) 3 SCC 321, 438.

  • (2022) 3 SCC 321, 452.

  • (2022) 1 SCC 701.

  • (2022) 1 SCC 701, 702.

  • (2022) 1 SCC 701, 703.

  • (2022) 1 SCC 701, 710.

  • (2022) 1 SCC 701, 711.

  • 2022 SCC OnLine SC 668.

  • 2022 SCC OnLine SC 668, para 16.

  • Anchor Health & Beauty Care Private Ltd v Controller of Patents & Designs, unanimous order dated 5 April 2016 by a Division Bench consisting of Anil R Dave and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.

  • Competition Commission of India v Co-Ordination Committee of Artists and Technicians of West Bengal Film and Television (2017) 5 SCC 17 (Full Bench. Judgment of the Court was delivered by Justice Dr A K Sikri); Excel Crop Care Limited v Competition Commission of India (2017) 8 SCC 47 (Division Bench. Judgment of the Court was delivered by Justice Dr A K Sikri and Justice N V Ramana authored his separate but concurring judgment); Kandla Export Corporation v OCI Corporation (2018) 14 SCC 715 (Division Bench. Judgment of the Court was delivered by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman).

  • (2021) 3 SCC 289.


Abstract Views: 112

PDF Views: 81




  • Theoretical Underpinnings Of Copyright And Design Laws Post-krishika Lulla And Godrej Sara Lee: Decisions Of The Supreme Court Of India

Abstract Views: 112  |  PDF Views: 81

Authors

Aqa Raza
Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat — 131001, Haryana,, India
Ghayur Alam
National Law Institute University, Bhopal — 462 044, Madhya Pradesh, India

Abstract


This Paper seeks to build upon the method and findings of ‘Theoretical Underpinnings of Copyright and Design Laws: Decisions of the Supreme Court of India’1 with a view to examine the theoretical underpinnings of copyright law post Krishika Lulla2 and design law post Godrej Sara Lee3 as discovered or constructed in the decisions of the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court). An analysis of the reported decisions on copyright law reveals that: (i) validity of The Copyright Actor of any provisions of the Act was not in question in any of the decisions; (ii) constitutional validity of Rule 29 (4) of The Copyright Rules, 2013 was in question in one of the decisions in which the Supreme Court showing deference to the legislative wisdom reversed the decision of the High Court on the ground that the High Court has overreached its remit and has re-drafted the rule; (iii) both Labour and Utilitarian Theories, and not any other theory, have been simultaneously invoked by the Supreme Court; and (iv) on an average, the Court has decided 1.66 copyright cases in a year; or one copyright case in 251 days, or in .68 (point six eight) years. It appears that the Supreme Court was invoking both Labour and Utilitarian Theories mechanically without going into the clear differences between the two. It has been previously4 argued that the Court should have applied judicially manageable standards to rigorously scrutinize the theoretical underpinnings of copyright law from all possible angles. This Paper reiterates this argument for nothing seems to have changed in the judicial approach when it comes to theoretical underpinnings of copyright law. An analysis of decisions on design law reveals that: (i) only one decision has been reported on design law and the Court has not gone into the question of theoretical underpinnings; (ii) in four decisions there is only a reference to The Designs Act but these decisions have not decided any question of design law; and (iii) on an average, the Court has decided .08 (point zero eight) design cases in a year; or one design case in 4,595 days, or in12.58 years.

Keywords


Labour Theory, Utilitarian Theory, Natural Right Theory, The Copyright Act, 1957, The Copyright Rules 1958, The Copyright Rules 2013, The Designs Act, 2000, per Incuriam, Theoretical Underpinnings, The Constitution Of India, Article 145(3), Supreme Court Of India, Presumption Of Constitutionality, Social Planning Theory, Ratiocination, Intellectual Property, Publici Juris, Draftsmanship, Craftsmanship, Amendment, Exclusive Right, Negative Right.

References