Read the following case on Copyright Law and answer the questions that follows : The present case is in relation to widely publicized Telugu film entitled 'Sardar Rubber Singh'. This is a film that stars Mr. Savan Kalyan

CS Professional · Intellectual Property Rights - Law and Practice · PYQS · June 2017
Read the following case on Copyright Law and answer the questions that follows : The present case is in relation to widely publicized Telugu film entitled 'Sardar Rubber Singh'. This is a film that stars Mr. Savan Kalyan, at actor of considerable renowned in the Telugu film industry known as Tollywood. The movie was schedule to release on 8th April, 2016. From August 2015 Sardar Rubber Singh was widely advertised. The Plaintiffs themselves admit to having seen posters in January 2016, but waited till March 2016 for the trailer. Sardar Rubber Singh is scheduled for release on 8th April, 2016. The Suit was filed on 24th March, 2016, at the very last minute. Defendant says that Sardar Rubber Singh has been produced with a ₹ 65 Crore budget. It is scheduled for theatrical release in 2000 screens worldwide and over 600 screens in Hindi. Back-to-back distribution and commercial agreements have been executed with several large cinema chains in India, U.S.A. and across the world. The case was filed on behalf of the plaintiff Aitraaz Khan. The Plaintiff alleged infrigement in respect of his film 'Jabaang' on two footings. That is copyright infringement and passing off. Two films were produced by the Plaintiffs Aitraaz Khan. The franchise features. Mr. Balwan Khan who was shown as a colourful police officer known as 'Chulbul Pandey'. The first issue is that the Bulbul Pandey character from the Jabangg films has been infringed by the Defendants in their forthcoming film 'Sardar Rubber Singh'. This is a sequel to the Defendants' hugely successful 'Rubber Singh', a remake authorised under a written and undisputed assignment, of the first 'Jabangg' film. In 2009/2010, the Plaintiff produced and released the first Jabangg film. The film script, story, screenplay and dialogue were written by Anubhav Singh, hired by the Plaintiff Aitraaz Khan on a commission basis for that purposes. The Plaintiffs created the unique character of Bulbul Pandey, portrayed by Mr. Balwan Khan. This character is described as "a corrupt but fearless police officer". According to the plaintiff there are various features that make this character unique they are: (a) Bulbul Pandey (portrayed by Mr. Balwan Khan) plays a corrupt but fearless police officer. He lives with his family and has a troubled relationship with his stepfather and half-brother. He calls himself "Robin Hood" Pandey. (b) Bulbul Pandey has his unique, funny and bizarre way of dealing with rogue elements. The character has developed a unique dance style. The entrie character of Bulbul Pandey was that of an endearing, loving and funny police officer, a spontaneous and peculiar laugh adds charm to his steps. Bulbul Pandey rides a bike in the movie. (c) Bulbul Pandey wears aviators and has a unique style of tucking the aviators on the back of his collar in the Film. (d) Bulbul Pandey has a well-built body type, neat close-cut hairdo and handlebar pencil-thin moustache. Though a police officer, he wears a uniform with the top buttons open. (e) Bulbul Pandey is a very light hearted police officer who dances with the other police officials at the police station. Even his fighting style has comic elements." The Jabangg film was extremely successful. This uniquely etched character of Culbul Pandey and it is suggested that this is no ordinary, generic or 'stock' police hero. Some two years later on 21st January, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Rameshwara Arts, a proprietary concern of the Savan Kalyan, for the remake rights of the first Jabangg film. As per the agreement the Assignee obtained absolute rights for remaking the film in Telugu language only. The Assignee will be having absolute rights to exploit the remade version of the film in Telugu Language only all over the world in all dimensions commercially and non-commercially. As per the agreement the term "Remake Rights" shall mean and included the rights to make a Film based on the Film and/or Script but not limited to the following: (a) The right to remake the Film in Telugu Language and for the Territory based on and using the story line, script, scenes, screenplay, dialogues, characters, picturisation, designs, dramatic work, artistic works and names of the characters, passages, title of the Film or any part thereof etc. of the Film in any manners as Assignee may deem fit the Film or the story line of the Film in any manner Assignee so chooses. (b) The exclusive right in the intellectual Property of the New Film including but not limited to the Copyright and all other ancillary rights and exclusive rights in the New Film and its underlying works. (c) Any and all other rights that are incidential to and are necessary for appropriate utilization of the above mentioned rights i.e. (i) and (ii) of this clause. As per the agreement the term "Script" means and includes jointly and severally the story, each script outline treatment, draft, re-write and polish and screenplay of the Film in Hindi with dialogues. Plaintiffs' case is that the Rubber Singh character portrayed br Mr. Savan Kalyan is nothing but an avatar of the Bulbul Pandey character portrayed by Mr. Balwant Khan. If Rubber Singh brough into existence a wholly different persona, then surely its creators and owners have the right to futher use that character and persona, no matter what any document said. Other than the name, there is no difference, and anyone seeing Rubber Singh on-screen, played by Mr. Savan Kalyan, will believe that he is seeing Bulbul Pandey albeit albeit with a different visage. Defendant's contention is that the name was different. The portrayal was different. The stylization was different. The locales were different. So too were his mannerisms, qualities and, most of all, his core value system, his moral compass: where Bulbal Pandey is fearless but corrupt, Rubber Singh is fearless and honest. This was an adaptation developed distinctively. The script or story line underlying Rubber Singh, is said to have been developed by Mr. Savan Kalyan himself, has an independent copyright. Further they informed that the agreement of 21st January, 2011 relates not to a licence but to an assignment, a very different thing. The Rubber Singh character for the first Telugu film, though a derivative character, was one that was unique to that particular film. This is reflected by the fact that there is an assignment in perpetuity and with exclusivity. Copyright vested with the Defendants within the meaning of Section 14(a) and (d) respectively of a literary work and a cinematographic film. The rights in the Rubber Singh character are wholly distinct from the rights in the Bulbul Pandey character. The rights in the Rubber Singh character vest in and only in the Defendants. Defendants claim was not only that the producers had copyright in the cinematography film but that they also owned the rights in the script, and that it was the entirety of all of this material that was assigned. There is also an argument in passing off that any person watching the Rubber Singh film is bound to recognise in the Rubber Singh's character as portrayed by Defendant Mr. Savan Kalyan, the Bulbul Pandey character portrayed by Mr. Balwant Khan. It is one thing to say that the character first portrayed by Mr. Balwant Khan is now being portrayed as an adaptation by Mr. Savan Kalyan. It is quite another thing to say that the two characters are exact and that anyone seeing Mr. Savan Kalyan's performance would think and only think of Mr. Balwan Khan's portrayal of a particular and character and none other. Again of this conflation of the two personas, and of the Rubber Singh character having no persona of his own, there is no evidence. The Court is of the opinion that both Bulbul Pandey and Rubber Singh wear their uniforms in a casual manner are hardly unique. The Rubber Singh character features a police officer who is both fearless and honest. The Bulbul Pandey in the Jabangg franchise is just as fearless, on the footing that we all want our heroes to be fearless, but he is at the same time corrupt, a nod to reality but hardly an aspiration. The setting of the two films is different, the Jabangg films are set in North India while the Rubber Singh films are in the Andhra/Telangana region. There are many other points of distinction too. Basing on the argument advanced and reasons explained in the present case the Bombay High Court is unable to find for the Plaintiffs on either a prima facie or balance of convenience, as a result the court decline ad-interim reliefs. Questions: (b) 'Computer programmes per se not patentable.' Discuss the patentability of computer programmes in India and other jurisdictions. Specify under which law they are protected.

Answer & Explanation:

Modern society relies heavily on computer technology for multiple reasons. Without software technology, computer hardware cannot be operated and therefore the software and hardware work in tandem in today's information society. Therefore, considering the heavy reliance placed by different businesses on the use of software for its different business purposes the intellectual property protection granted to software becomes not just important but also very crucial to the software industry as well as other industries. A Software patent is generally defined as a patent that protects some programming technique. The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) has defined a software patent as being a "patent on any performance of a computer realized by means of a computer program." The intellectual property law protection with respect to computer software has been highly debated both at the national as well as international level. The following are the important issues concerning software patents: Whether software patents should be allowed, and if so, where the boundary between patentable and non-patentable software should lie; Whether the inventive step and non-obviousness requirement is applied too loosely to software; and Whether patents covering software discourage, rather than encourage, innovation. Most countries place limitations on the grant of patent on inventions involving software as the ultimate product. Also, there is no settled definition of a software patent laid down under the law. As for instance, U.S. patent law excludes "abstract ideas", and this has been used to refuse grant of patent to products involving some software. In Europe, "computer programs as such" are excluded from the phenomenon of patent. The Patent laws in several countries favour the grant of patent protection for software innovations. Such countries include USA, Australia and Singapore, to name a few. However, many other countries, which include India and European nations, have more stringent laws concerning grant of patent protection to software innovations. Most of the jurisprudence relating to software patents emanates from United States, which is considered as the cradle of software patents. In the landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in Diamond v. Thehr, (1981), the court ordered the Patent office to grant a patent on an invention even though a computer software was utilized in it. Indian Patent legislation offers patent protection for products and processes (if they satisfy the requirements of patentability) except the non-patentable subject matter laid down in sections 3 and 4 of the Patents Act, 1970. As per in section 3(k), it is clearly indicated that 'a mathematical or business method or a computer program per se or algorithms' are non-patentable inventions. One may also refer to the recently released Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure (2011) which clarifies ambiguities in respect of patentability. Even the manual does not provide for patentability of computer software in combination with hardware. The text in the Manual is reproduced below. f. If the claimed subject matter in a patent application is only a computer programme, it is considered as a computer programme per se and hence not patentable. Claims directed at computer programme products are computer programmes per se stored in a computer readable medium and as such are not allowable. Even if the claims, inter alia, contain a subject matter which is not a computer programme, it is examined whether such subject matter is sufficiently disclosed in the specification and forms an essential part of the invention. In India, Computer Software is protected by the Copyright Law as applicable to literary and artistic works. Computer software on the other hand is protected by copyright as applicable to literary and artistic works. A computer program is therefore dealt with as a literary work and the law and practice in relation to literary works will apply to computer programs. Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, 1957 lays down that the term 'literary work' includes computer programmes.

Topics: Patent Law

Open in Interactive Practice Hub · Full Practice Hub · Chapter Weightage · More in this subject

Related Questions in this Topic