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
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