MRF Limited v. Metro Tyres Limited

Relevant Acts and provisions

Copyright Act, 1957

Section 13(1)(b)Section 14(d)Section 51

Provisions considered: Sections 13(1)(b), 14(d) and 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957, on originality and reproduction of cinematograph films.

Brief facts

MRF Limited produced a television commercial for one of its tyre products and alleged that a subsequent advertisement by Metro Tyres copied the theme, storyline, sequence of shots and background music of its commercial, infringing copyright in the cinematograph film and underlying works. MRF sought an interim injunction restraining broadcast of the defendant's advertisement, and the two commercials were compared shot by shot before the Court to assess similarity of expression.

Issues before the Court

1. Does a cinematograph film require independent originality under Section 13(1)(b) distinct from its underlying works?
2. Is frame-by-frame reproduction necessary to constitute copying of a film under Section 14(d), or does substantial similarity suffice?

Court's findings

The Court held that a cinematograph film is treated by the statute as a distinct work under Section 13(1)(b), and that while it does not carry an originality requirement identical to that for literary or artistic works, some measure of skill and judgment in its creation is required and was present here.

The Court held that infringement of a cinematograph film under Section 14(d) is not confined to literal frame-by-frame duplication by the same mechanical process, and that substantial or material similarity in theme, concept, sequence of shots and expression, assessed from the perspective of an ordinary viewer, suffices, applying the substantial-similarity test laid down in R.G. Anand.

Comparing the two commercials, the Court found sufficient similarity in storyline and visual sequencing to make out a prima facie case of infringement.

Decision

Interim injunction granted restraining the defendant from telecasting its advertisement found to substantially reproduce the plaintiff's commercial.

Cases cited

• R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, AIR 1978 SC 1613

Authorities referred to in the decision. Please verify each citation in the judgment itself.

Keywords

Cinematograph Film Comparative Advertising Copyright Infringement Originality Substantial Similarity