CAIL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019

T
EAM CODE : 36

IN THE HON’BLE MOOT COURT OF

CHRIST ACADEMY INSTITUTE OF LAW
AT BENGALURU
~~ No.____/20^

In Matter of

SECTION 62, COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957

Joseph Martin Petitioner

vs.

Creative Television Respondent

BEFORE SUMISSION TO HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES
OF THE HON’BLE MOOT COURT OF CHRIST ACADEMY INSTITUTE
OF LAW

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Memorandum in behalf of {Respondent}
i
 CAIL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
………………………………………………………………………………i
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
………………………………………………………………………….ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
…………………………………………………………………………..iii
a. Cases Cited
…………………………………………………………………………..iii
b. Books and Treatises
…………………………………………………………………..iii
c. Dictionaries and Law Lexicons
………………………………………………………iii
d. Legal Databases
……………………………………………………………………..iii
e. Legislations
…………………………………………………………………………..iii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
……………………………………………………………………..iv
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS
………………………………………………………………………………v
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
………………………………………………………………………vi
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
……………………………………………………………………….ix
Issue 1
…………………………………………………………………………………….1
Issue 2
…………………………………………………………………………………….2

Memorandum in behalf of {Respondent}

ii
 CAIL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019

Prayer
…………………………………………………………………………………………..3

Memorandum in behalf of {Respondent}

iii
CAIL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SC Supreme Court

AIR All India Reporter

IC Indian Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

SCJ Supreme Court Journal

CTC Current Tamil Nadu Cases

UOI Union of India

Ed Edition

Anr Another

Ors Other

Memorandum in behalf of {Respondent}

iv
 CAIL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. CASES CITED
1. Amar Nath Seghal v. Union of India And Anr . on 21 February ,2005
2. Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd. And Anr on 8 August , 1986
3. Phoolan Devi v. Shekhar Kapoor And Ors. On 1 December , 1994
4. R.G Anand v. M/S. Delux Films & Ors on 18th August, 1978

B. BOOKS AND TREATISES

1. SUPREME COURT CASES

2. HIGH COURT CASES

C. DICTIONARIES AND LAW LEXICONS

1. GARNER B.A, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (9th ed,2009)
2. 4 GREENBERG DANIEL, STROUD’S JUDICIAL DICTIONARY OF WORDS
AND PHRASES (4th ed).

D. LEGAL DATABASES
1. http://www.manupatra.com
2. http://www.scconline.com
3. http://www.westlaw.org
4. http://www.indiankanoon.com

E. LEGISLATIONS
1.Indian Penal Code
2. Copyright Act
3. Civil Procedure

Memorandum in behalf of {Respondent}

v
 CAIL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

SSTATEMENT
TATEMENT O
OFF JJURISDICTION
URISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate over the matter under
SECTION 62 OF INDIAN COPYRIGHT ACT , 1957.

The Counsel for the Defendant would like to bring the notice of the Hon’ble City civil court
of Bangalore that the contention to issue an order of injunction against Creative Telefilms
from broadcasting the television series The Battle of Westeros either through television,
internet or any other medium by the plaintiff is not void because According to the facts of the
case Joseph Martin had assigned his copyrights to Creative telefilms, the producer of the
television series The Battle of Westeros in terms of Section 18 of Indian copyright Act, 1957.
The assignment agreement was executed on 1.01.2018.
Were section 18 of the Copyright Act read as :
 Assignment of copyright.-
(1)  The owner of the copyright in an existing work or the prospective owner of the
copyright in a future work may assign to any person the copyright either wholly or
partially and either generally or subject to limitations and either for the whole of the
copyright or any part thereof: Provided that in the case of the assignment of
copyright in any future work, the assignment shall take effect only when the work
comes into existence.
(2)  Where the assignee of a copyright becomes entitled to any right comprised in the
copyright, the assignee as respects the rights so assigned, and the assignor as
respects the rights not assigned, shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as the
owner of copyright and the provisions of this Act shall have effect accordingly.

The agreement1 between Joseph Martin and Creative telefilms provided for the assignment of
all present and future literary work to creative telefilms for the purpose of production of the
television series titled the battle of Westeros. In consideration for the same. Joseph Martin
was to receive 20 percent of all profits as royalty.
Were as section 10 of Indian contract act deal with agreement
“All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to
contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly
declared to be void. All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of
parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not
hereby expressly declared to be void.” Nothing herein contained shall affect any law in force
in India, and not hereby expressly repealed, by which any contract is required to be made in
writing or in the presence of witnesses, or any law relating to the registration of documents.2
The contention of Joseph Martin for that Order of Injunction is completely void because
according to section 38(1) of The specific Relief Act, 1963 an Injunction can may be granted
to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly
or by implication.
The next point which was taken into Consideration was regarding the basic facts of the case
that The Battle of Westeros made its debut in the Year 2011 and the Agreement came into

1
Agreement is defined under section 10 of India contract act if it is made by competent parties, out of their free
consent and for lawful object and consideration.
2
Section 10 ,Indian Contract Act , 1972
Memorandum in behalf of {Respondent}
vi
 CAIL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

force on 01st January 2018. The period of time here was almost 7 years before the execution
of Agreement. Joseph Martin didn’t showed any response within these years but after The
Television Series got the attention in various critics and won Awards, Joseph Martin started
to claim his right despite not having the conditions made in the agreement and getting the
Profits as agreed.
According to section 62(2)3 of copyright act 1957, Where section 62(2) read as Jurisdiction
of Court over matters arising under this Chapter.-
(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), a “district court having jurisdiction” shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or any
other law for the time being in force, include a district court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit or other proceeding, the person instituting
the suit or other proceeding or, where there are more than one such persons, any of them
actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.
The Court observed that under Section 62 of the Copyright Act and Section 134 of the Trade
Marks Act, an additional forum has been provided including a District Court within whose
limits the plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works
for gain. The object of the provisions was to enable the plaintiff to institute a suit at a place
where he or they resided or carried on business, not to enable them to drag defendant further
away from such a place also as is being done in the instant cases.

In the case of Exphar SA and Anr v Eupharma Laboratories Ltd & Anr4
The Supreme Court finally settled the position in this regard. The Court observed:
Section 62(2) cannot be read as limiting the jurisdiction of the District Court only to
cases where the person instituting the suit or other proceeding or where there are more
than one such persons, any of them actually and voluntarily resides or carries on
business or presently works for gain. It prescribes an additional ground for attracting
the jurisdiction of a court over and above the normal grounds as laid down in Section
20 of the C.P.C. Even if the jurisdiction of the Court were restricted in the manner
construed by the Division Bench, it is evident not only from the cause title but also
from the body of the plaint that the Appellant No 2 carries on business within the
jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The Appellant No 2 certainly a person instituting
the suit. The Division Bench went beyond the express words of the statute and
negatived the jurisdiction of the Court because it found that the Appellant No 2 had
not claimed ownership of the copyright, infringement of which was claimed in the
suit. The appellant No 2 may not be entitled to the relief claimed in the suit but that is
no reason for holding that it was not a person who had instituted the suit within the
meaning of Section 62(2) of the Act.

3
Jurisdiction of court over matters arising under this Chapter
4
(2004) 3 SCC 688
Memorandum in behalf of {Respondent}
vii
 CAIL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

1. The Battle of Westeros was a fantasy television series that made its debut in the year
2011. In a span of few seasons, it became an enormous hit. Such was the popularity of the
show that it garnered the highest television rating for a television series. Apart from
setting the cash registers ringing, the television series also won several awards for its
visual effects, script and performances.

2. The television series was based on a book called “A song of water and fire” written by
Joseph Martin. Though the television series was largely based on the books authored by
Joseph Martin, the television series was suitably adapted by the producers for television
audience.

3. Being the author of the literary work, Joseph Martin had assigned his copyright to
Creative telefilms, the producers of the television series The Battle of Westeros in terms
of Section 18 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. The assignment agreement was executed
in India on 01.01.2018 (here in after referred to as ‘the agreement’).

4. The agreement provided for the assignment of all present and future literary work to
Creative telefilms for the purpose of production of the television series titled The Battle
of Westeros. In consideration for the same, Joseph Martin was to receive 20% of all
profits as royalty.

5. The final season of The Battle of Westeros premiered on May 2019. The season finale
was the highest grossing televisions how of all times. However, ardent followers of the
book and critics were left thoroughly disappointed as the television series had huge
deviations from the essence of the characters that the audience had grown found of. The
main characters of the plot were reduced to menial roles while the entire plot that was
build up throughout the series was given an illogical and incomprehensible finale.

6. Joseph Martin was extremely agitated that the characters as evolved in the books
written by him, were virtually destroyed. He asserted that he has invested years of labour
into developing the characters of the plot. Creative telefilms has with the sole intent of
over dramatizing the TV series ,shattered the essence of the main characters .Being
aggrieved by this, Joseph Martin issued a legal notice to Creative telefilms calling upon
them to stop the broadcast of the television series with immediate effect.

7. Upon the receipt of the legal notice, Creative telefilms responded by contending that in
terms of the agreement, Jospeh Martin had assigned his rights over the literary work to
Creative Telefilms. As such, he has no say in the manner and form in which the
characters are portrayed or depicted in the television series.

8. Infuriated by the response, Joseph Martin instituted as suit before the Bangalore City
Civil Court under Section 62 of the Indian Copy right Act, 1957seeking for the following
reliefs:
a. To issue an order of Injunction against Creative Tele films from broad casting the
television series The Battle of Westeros either through television, internet or any other
medium;
Memorandum in behalf of {Respondent}
viii
 CAIL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

b. To pay punitive and exemplary damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees

One Crore Only) towards the distortion, mutilation and the modification of his work.

9. Joseph Martin contended that his rights over his literary work are protected even
after the execution of the assignment agreement in terms of Section 57 of the Indian
Copy right Act, 1957. Further, he asserted that the balance of convenience lies in his
favour in addition to having made out a prima facie case that he would suffer
irreparable harm in the event the order of injunction is not granted.

10. Creative Telefilms in response has filed its Statement of Objections contending that
the mere failure to portray the characters of the literary work to the satisfaction of Joseph
Martin would not constitute an infringement of his rights. In any event, huge sums of
money having being invested in the production and distribution of the television series, an
order of injunction ought not to be issued. Further, Creative Telefilms is ready to pay the
royalty in terms of the assignment agreement and as such the question of payment of
damages does not arise.

11. The pleading shaving been completed, the case is set down for final hearing.
Participants are at liberty to raise additional issues.

Memorandum in behalf of {Respondent}

ix
 (CAIL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
)
SUMMARY OF
ARGUMENTS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUES RAISED
Issue 1

IS THERE ANY BREECH OF AGREEMENT COMMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT ?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE DEFENDANT SHOULD PAY ANY RELIEF ?

Memorandum in behalf of {Respondent}

x
 CAIL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
ARGUMENTS
ADVANCED

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1
IS THERE ANY BREACH OF AGREEMENT COMMITTED BY THE

DEFENDANT?

No , there is no breach of agreement committed by the defendant. The breach of agreement

means that a legal cause of action and a type of civil wrong , in which a binding agreement

(or) bargained – for exchange is not honored by one (or) more of the parties to the contact by

non-performance (or) interference with other party’s performance.

The Plaintiff has initially had assigned his rights over the literary work to defendant. In

that agreement, it is only mentioned that the Plaintiff should only receive 20% of all profits as

royalty. The Plaintiff has not said anything in the manner and form in which the characters

are portrayed or depicted in television series. According to the agreement the Defendant is

ready to pay only the royalty in terms of the assignment agreement and as such question of

payment of damages does not arise.

Hence, by this we can say that there was no breach of agreement committed by the

Defendant.

Memorandum in behalf of {Respondent}

1
 CAIL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE DEFENDANT SHOULD PAY ANY RELIEF ?

As per the agreement and assignment, it does not state, that there should be particular

character that must be portrayed.

That the mere failure to portray the characters of the literary work to the satisfaction of
plaintiff would not constitute an infringement of his rights. In any event, huge sums of money
having being invested in the production and distribution of the television series , an order of
injunction ought not to be issued. Further , defendant is ready to pay the royalty in terms of
the assignment agreement and as such the question of payment of damages does not arise.

As per Section 63: OFFENCE OF INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT or OTHER

RIGHT CONFERRED BY THIS ACT. – Any person who knowingly infringes or abets of
infringement of –
(a) The copyright in a work, or
(b) Any other right conferred by this act 1.(expect the right conferred by section 53A),
2. (the court may , for special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, to impose a fine
which shall not be less than fifty thousand but which may not extend to two lakh rupees)

So, according to section 62, the fine should not extend more than two lakh rupees and
plaintiff has asked one crore rupees for the damages, which can be regarded as void.

And as per agreement defendant is paying 20% royalty and nothing is mentioned as
exemplary damages to be paid.

Memorandum in behalf of {Respondent}

2
 CAIL INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, this Hon’ble court may be pleased to:
1. To declare that there is no breach of agreement committed by the defendant.
2. To declare that the defender shall not pay exemplary damages to tune of rupees one
crore rupees.
3. To declare the case is void and dismiss the case.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

And for this, the defendant shall as in duty bound, forever humbly pray.
Counsels for the defendant.

Memorandum in behalf of {Respondent}

3