Skip to main content

Copyright laws don't apply to auto parts: High court

The Gujarat high court quashed an FIR registered by Naroda police for infringement of copyright while booking a person for sale of automobile spare parts. The court junked the criminal complaint saying that automobile parts cannot be treated as works of art for which Copyright Act can be invoked.

Last year, the Naroda police had registered an FIR against a shop owner, Hasmukh Panchal, who dealt in duplicate parts of Hyundai cars. The police booked him under sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act after one Prakash Goswami, who claimed to be an investigating officer of IPR Vigilance (India) Ltd, alleged that Panchal was involved in sale of duplicate parts of Hyundai cars.

Panchal moved the high court to get the FIR quashed. He submitted that Goswami, who had no authorization and assignment from the company, had ransacked his office with help of the police and taken away moveable objects. The state government had even tried to defend the FIR but it could not show how the allegations had anything to do with the Copyright Act.

The court quashed the FIR on the ground that the copyright laws are not applicable to automobile parts. The court cited provisions of the law and said that it is applied to works of art such as painting, sculpture, drawing, and photographs and on works of literature. It cannot be said that spare parts of cars are works of art to which provisions of copyright laws are applicable, said the court.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Creditor-cant-oust-tenants-from-mortgaged-property-SC/articleshow/33194122.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more