Khem Karan, J. - (1.) This appeal under Sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the Copyright. 1957 (for short Act of 1957) is directed against the order dated 19.6.2000 passed by Copyright Board (for short the Board) in Case No. 8 of 1992 under Section 50 of the Act of 1957, by which it refused to expunge the entry No. A-51185-91 made in respect of an artistic work, named "Device Two Hukkas" in favour of the respondents.
(2.) A brief reference to the facts leading to this appeal has to be made so as to appreciate the matter in controversy. The respondent No. 1 moved one application in April, 1986, under Section 45 of the Act of 1957 for registering its copyright in the said artistic work. In the application, the name of the author was shown as Nadeem of Moradabad but the appellants claimed themselves to be the owners of the artistic work. The language was stated to be Urdu. It was also stated that the appellants had first published the artistic work in India in the year 1985. Due to certain defects such as want of certificate referred to in proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the Act of 1957, no orders could be passed on this application before 23.10.1991.
(3.) Earlier, respondent No. 1 had filed one criminal complaint in the Court- of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay, accusing the appellants of having committed offences punishable under Section 63 of the Act of 1957, Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (for short Act of 1958) and under Sections 420 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code, by deceptively using the Device Two Hukkas tied with a pipe in its consignment to be shipped to foreign countries. The learned Magistrate passed orders for seizure of the goods. The present appellants challenged the seizure order before the Bombay High Court and the High Court modified that order by its order dated 25.9.1991. Special Leave Petition No. 4289 of 1991 filed by the appellants was dismissed on 27.3.1992 ; whereas the special leave petition filed by the respondent No. 1 was disposed of in the following words : "Heard counsel. We are not prepared to interfere at this stage. We give liberty to the petitioner to go back to the High Court and ask for better terms to protect the petitioners' interest pendente lite. The petitioners may also approach the civil court for relief if the petitioners consider it necessary as an interim measure. Dismissed.";