JAI NARAIN VYAS UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

FACULTY OF LAW

BA.L.L. B 7TH SEMESTER

SESSION: - 2022-2023

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

MOOT MEMORIAL

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

DR RAJESH PUROHIT AKSHA BELIM
20BAL20064

1
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT COURT

IN THE MATTER OF

UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD ...Plantiff(s)

V.
RAMESHWARI PHOTOCOPY SERVICES …Defendant(s)

MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

2
 JURISDICTION
This hon’ble court as requisite territorial and subject matter jurisdiction to entertain and
adjudicate this matter by virtue of section 62 of copyrights act,1957, which provides that every
suit or other civil proceeding arising in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work or
the infringement of any other right conferred by this act shall be instituted in the district court.

FACTS
Five publishers namely the Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press (UK),
Cambridge University Press (India), Taylor & Francis Group (UK) and Taylor & Francis
Books (India) instituted a suit before the Delhi High Court in August 2012 for permanent
injunction against the Delhi University and Rameshwari Photocopy Service alleging them of
infringing their copyrights.
They claimed infringement based on the fact that defendants copied excerpts from the books
published by them and compiled them to make study materials and course packs.
They contended that this Act of the defendants clearly violates the copyrights protected under
section 51 of the Copyrights Act.

3
 ISSUE RAISED
Did the reproduction of sections in the course packs constitute copyright infringement?

ARGUMENTS
1. Copyright is not a natural or divine right, but only a statutory right.
“Copyright, specially in literary works, is thus not an inevitable, divine, or natural right that
confers on authors the absolute ownership of their creations. It is designed rather to stimulate
activity and progress in the arts for the intellectual enrichment of the public. Copyright is
intended to increase and not to impede the harvest of knowledge.”

2. Section 52 is to be interpreted not as a narrow exception but a full-fledged defence in favour

of educational institutions and students.
“The rights of persons mentioned in Section 52 are to be interpreted following the same rules
as the rights of a copyright owner and are not to be read narrowly or strictly or so as not to
reduce the ambit of Section 51, as is the rule of interpretation of statutes in relation to provisos
or exceptions. Thus, Sections 14 and 51 on the one hand and Section 52 on the other hand are
to be read as any two provisions of a statute.”

3. The term ‘teacher’ in Section 52(1)(i) is not restricted to an individual teacher but extends
to educational institutions as a whole.
“There is no reason to interpret Section 52(1)(i) as providing for an individual teacher and an
individual pupil and which, neither at the time of inclusion thereof in the statute nor now exists
in the society….Merely because imparting of education by teachers today is as part of an
institution as the defendant no.2 University and it is the defendant no.2 University which on
behalf of its teachers is reproducing any copyrighted work by making photocopies thereof,
would not mean that Section 52(1)(i) would not be applicable.”

4. The word “ instruction” in section 52 (1) (i) is not limited to a lecture in the classroom and
thus the scope of this provision is not limited to reproduction of a work by a teacher in the
course of a lecture but also includes reproduction for the purpose of making and issuing course
packs.
“Had the intention of the legislature while incorporating Section 52(1)(i) been to constitute
reproduction of any work by a teacher or a pupil in the course of lecture, the legislature would
have in Section 52(1)(i) used the word lecture which has been defined in the Act. The word
instruction thus has to necessarily mean something other than lecture.….In the context of the
teacher, it refers to something which a teacher tells the student to do in the course of teaching
or detailed information which a teacher gives to a student or pupil to acquire knowledge of
what the students or pupil has approached the teacher to learn.”

4
5. The imparting of instruction does not begin and end in the classroom or tutorials only but
extends beyond that and thus Section 52(1)(i) covers reproduction by an educational institution
during the entire academic session.
“The words in the course of instruction within the meaning of Section 52(1)(i) supra would
include reproduction of any work while the process of imparting instruction by the teacher and
receiving instruction by the pupil continues i.e. during the entire academic session for which
the pupil is under the tutelage of the teacher and that imparting and receiving of instruction is
not limited to personal interface between teacher and pupil but is a process of commencing
from the teacher readying herself/himself for imparting instruction, setting syllabus,
prescribing text books, reading and ensuring, whether by interface in classroom/tutorials or
otherwise by holding tests from time to time or clarifying doubts of students, the pupil stands
instructed in what he/she has approached the teacher to learn”.

6. Since the reproduction of pages from the books by each of the students, whether by way of
photocopying, copying by hand or clicking photographs, for his/her private use does not
amount to copyright infringement by virtue of Section 52(1)(a), the photocopying of the same
by the university for the benefit of the students due to certain resource constraints cannot be
said to be infringement when the result/effect of both is the same.
“I have wondered that if the action of each of the students of having the book issued from the
library of defendant No.2 University and copying pages thereof, whether by hand or by
photocopy, is not infringement, whether the action of the defendant no.2 University impugned
in this suit, guided by the reason of limited number of each book available in its library, the
limited number of days of the academic session, large number of students requiring the said
book, the fear of the costly precious books being damaged on being subjected to repeated
photocopying, can be said to be infringement; particularly when the result/effect of both actions
is the same… The answer, according to me, has to be in the negative.”

7. Once it is found that the making of course packs by a university does not constitute
infringement, it is of no consequence whether the university is doing so by use of a machine
installed inside its library or outside, whether it owns that machine or not, whether it allows
photocopies to be made by the students themselves or with the assistance of another person and
whether such person is its employee or an independent contractor. Thus, the Delhi University’s
engagement of Defendant No. 1 for making of course packs does not convert its action, which
is otherwise held to be not infringement, to infringement.
“In my view, there is no difference in the two situations i.e. whether the photocopying machine
is installed within the library or is installed outside the library. In my view it also does not make
any difference whether the respondent no.2 University itself purchases the photocopy machine
and / or allows the students to photocopy themselves or employs a person for doing photocopy.
Once such a action is held to be not offending any provisions of the Copyright Act, merely
because the photocopying is done not by the person desirous thereof himself but with the
assistance of another human being, would not make the act offending. It matters not whether

5
such person is an employee of the defendant no.2 University or the defendant no.2 University
avails the services of a contractor. The position of the defendant no.1 in the present case is
found to be that of a contractor to whom the defendant no.2 University has outsourced fits work
of providing photocopying service for its students. For this reason, it matters not whether the
photocopying machine is allowed by the defendant no.2 University to be kept within the library
or at some other place outside the library… I thus conclude that the engagement as aforesaid
by the defendant No.2 University of defendant No.1 does not convert the action of defendant
No.2 University as held hereinabove to be not amounting to infringement of copyright in books,
to infringement.”

8. IRRO doesn’t even come into play since the impugned acts of the defendants were covered
under Section 52(1)(i) of the Act, and thus there is no need to pay any licensing fees to IRRO.
“The question of issuing any such direction would arise only upon finding that what the
defendant No.2 University is doing is not covered by Section 52 of the Act and which would
make it an infringement of the copyright and to avoid which it can go before IRRO.”

6
 PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced
and authorities cited, it is therefore, most humbly prayed before
this Hon’blecourt may be pleased to:
1. Dismiss the entire suit of the plaintiffs.

2. Conclude that the impugned actions of the Defendants do not amount

to copyright infringement.

Any other order, direction or relief that this hon’ble court

may deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good
conscience.