The legal case is between MRF limited and Metro Tyres Limited were MRF Limited is the Plaintiff and Metro Limited is the defendant. This case was held in the Delhi High Court on 1st July 2019.
In this case, MRF Limited is engaged in the business of tyres manufacturing, marketing and selling in many countries including India. During its course of business, MRF ltd. has been producing a range of tyres and one of its series was MRF NV Series “REVZ”. The MRF Ltd. to advertise its new range of tyres produced an audio-visual advertisement titled as “MRF NV Series present REVZ” which was aired in TV and internet in June 2015.Under the Section 2(f) of the Copyright Act, 1957, MRF Ltd. is the author of said advertisement which constitutes a cinematography work.
In October 2016, it came in knowledge of the plaintiff that the Metro Tyres Ltd., who is also engaged in the same business has produced similar advertisement titled “Bazooka Radial Tyres”. The MRF Ltd. averred that it can be clearly seen that the defendant’s advertisement is nothing but a substantial and material copy of their advertisement and further alleged that due to similarities between the advertisement, the copyright of the MRF Ltd. has been infringed by the Metro Tyres Ltd.
After this the plaintiff immediately filed a complain with the ASCI. ASCI did not take any action but only forwarded the complaint to the defendant. On receiving the receipt of the complaint, the defendant filed a suit against the plaintiff which was dismissed by the Court. After this the plaintiff filed the suit before the Honorable Delhi High Court.
Plaintiff’s Arguments
The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s advertisement contain similarities with their advertisement and these similarities shows that they intent was to copy the advertisement. The plaintiff stated that the coincidences which appeared in the two advertisement were neither incidental nor based on mere chance. They also stated that the overall impression of third-party advertisements was clearly and materially different from that of the plaintiff’s and defendant’s advertisement.
Defendant’s Arguments
The defendant’s stated that the present case is not the case of trademark infringement and therefore it is not a confusion-based action against defendant. They also emphasized that in Section 13(1) of the Act,1957 the word, original is not used with respect to cinematography film. The defendant submitted that the expression, to make a copy of the film meant to make a physical copy of the film itself and not another film which is merely resembled the original film.
Judgment
The High Court while dealing with the issues observed that the issue of copying the material and sub part of the cinematography, the definition of copying is not limited to making actual copy, but also includes imitation and reproduction of the cinematograph. The Court relied on the case of Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt. Ltd. vs. Vipul Amrutlal Shah & Ors. and observed that to make a copy of the film does not mean just to make a physical copy, but also refers to another film which resembles the original film.
The Court while discussing the issue of copyright infringement, stated that the test laid down in R.G. Anand case is of general application and limited to literary work only. The court also observed that the word original in section13(1) is not limited to literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works but also covers cinematograph films in it. The Court further relied on Berne Conversation and observed that the conversation stated that a cinematograph work is to be protected as an original work and owner of same work shall enjoy the same rights.
Therefore, the Court in the present case ruled that there was no substantial similarity between the advertisements therefore no interim injunction was granted. The application for injunction was dismissed, but without any order as to cost.
Presented by,
Maasafah Naik