When plaintiff is entitled to get Injunction to restrain deft from infringement of copyright?

Intellectual Property Rights - Ad-interim injunction - Entitlement for - Present suit filed for preventing misuse of confidential information and also infringement of copyright by Defendants and Plaintiffs sought ad-interim injunction against work of Defendants in suit - Whether Plaintiffs were entitled for ad-interim injunction against work of Defendants - Held, information was parted with by Plaintiffs in circumstances of confidence, which casted obligation on Defendants to maintain confidentiality and not use material without licence of Plaintiffs - All important elements from Plaintiffs' concept notes were copied in Defendants' work - Defendants were actually using Plaintiffs' concept notes while making their work - Plaintiffs had statable case even of breach of copyright and that at ad-interim stage, material in which they claimed such copyright, ought to be protected - Plaintiffs had not only prepared first concept note and got same registered, but had proceeded to develop this concept note into various character sketches, plots and other material - Value of material would be completely lost and Plaintiffs would be effectively rendered unable to use material for their own sake - Defendants were not likely to suffer any irretrievable damages if telecast of serial was held up for few days - Therefore, Plaintiffs were entitled for ad -interim injunction against telecast of serial.
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 785 OF 2015
IN
SUIT (L) NO. 251 OF 2015
Beyond Dreams Entertainment Pvt.Ltd. & Ors.
vs.
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. & Anr.

CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.
25 MARCH 2015

Print Page

How to prove infringement of easementary right to light and air?

Applying the same principles the Supreme Court remarked in Chapsibhai Dhanjibhai Danad Vs. Purushottam reported in 1971 (2) SCC 205.

"There must be a substantial privation of light, enough to render the occupation of the house uncomfortable, according to the ordinary notions of mankind". (paragraph 22) Very importantly, the Supreme Court also held in paragraph 23, that it also had to be shown in detail, how raising of a construction would cause this substantial privation of light so as to make occupation of the house uncomfortable. This was emphasized by Mr. Jethmalani, to say that the plaint and the petition of the plaintiff were lacking in material particulars with regard to the details of infringement of the easement of light.

A Division Bench of this High Court pronounced the same principle In Re: Reba Samanta (1993) ILR 1 Cal 317. Mr. Justice S.K. Mukherjee opined as follows :

"In the first place, the disputed property on which the construction in progress is sought to be thwarted admittedly belongs to the opposite parties. The proposed construction again admittedly is being done on the basis of a sanctional plan and ordinarily every person has a right of constructing without interruption in such a situation, it is well settled by several judicial decisions that in order to succeed in preventing such legal right to construct on one's own land, it is to be established that the construction would result in actionable nuisance against the complainant. In the case of a complaint of actionable nuisance regarding air and light one must show that the interference with the enjoyment of the same is such that it results in substantial deprivation of a comfortable user of the document tenement impossible.

Calcutta High Court

Itc Limited vs Chowringhee Residency Private ... on 16 January, 2015

Author: I. P. Mukerji

Citation AIR 2015 Calcutta 37

Print Page