The Delhi High Court has refused to restrain Delhi Law House and its associated entities or persons from publishing and selling 47 law books, holding that Shakti Sagar, who filed the suit, failed to establish a prima facie copyright right in the works.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was hearing a suit filed by Sagar, who claimed exclusive copyrights over 47 titles and alleged that the defendants, including Delhi Law House, were publishing and selling the books without her permission.

The plaintiff, widow of late Subhash Sagar and daughter-in-law of late R.G. Sagar, claimed that her copyright title flowed through her father-in-law and husband. She relied upon a 1962 certificate, a Will executed by R.G. Sagar in 1995 and a subsequent Will executed by her husband in 2021.

She alleged that while Delhi Law House (DLH) had been permitted to publish the titles, another entity The Delhi Law House (TDLH) was publishing and selling them without her licence. She also alleged that TDLH was using the premises, domain name and email IDs of DLH.

The defendants disputed her copyright claim, contending that the books were authored by different writers and that the plaintiff had produced no assignment documents from those authors in favour of either M/s Law Book Company or late R.G. Sagar.

They also questioned the 1962 certificate, pointing out that it did not disclose any assignment of copyright by the actual authors.

The Court noted that under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, the author is the first owner of copyright, while a person other than the author can derive title through an assignment under Section 18 or transmission recognised by law.

It further noted that Section 19(1) requires an assignment of copyright to be in writing and signed by the assignor or their duly authorised agent.

The Court observed that the books in question bore the names of their respective authors and that the plaintiff was claiming copyright as a remote successor of an assignee.

However, it said that the plaintiff had not disclosed how M/s Law Book Company itself acquired copyright from the authors. “The root of the plaintiff's title is, therefore, not disclosed at this stage," it added.

The Court further held that the two Wills relied upon by the plaintiff could not fill this gap. It noted that neither of the testators was the author of the works and that the title of the first testator itself had not been established.

"Both Wills are seriously disputed. The execution of the Will dated 17.10.1995 and the signature of the testator are denied. The plaint describes it as a registered Will, whereas defendant nos. 1 to 4 assert that it bears no endorsement of registration," the Court said.

“A legatee takes only what the testator held,” the Court observed, adding that the plaintiff's claim to copyright rested on disputed testamentary instruments while the root of the title in an assignment from the authors remained undisclosed.

The Court also rejected plaintiff's reliance on the principle that an injunction normally follows in cases of copyright infringement.

It said that such a principle presupposes that the plaintiff has at least prima facie established ownership of the copyright.

Appearance: Mr. Gaurav Bahl, Advocate for Plaintiff; r. Sanjay Vashishtha, Mr.Lavkesh Bhambhani, Mr.Siddhartha and Mr. Aditya, Advocates for D-1 to 4