The case revolves around an alleged infringement of copyright in an artistic work. The plaintiffs, C. Cunniah & Co., claimed that the defendants, Balraj & Co., had produced and sold a picture that was a colorable imitation of their copyrighted work. The plaintiffs sought an injunction, damages, and an account of profits. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding no infringement. On appeal, the court analyzed the similarities and differences between the two works and the principles governing copyright protection.

• Detailed Factual Background:
  • C. Cunniah & Co. were merchants in Madras, engaged in selling pictures and picture frames.
  • In 1932, an artist named T. M. Subramaniam created a picture of Lord Balasubramanya titled "Mayura Priya."
  • On July 13, 1938, Subramaniam assigned the copyright of this picture to the plaintiffs, who began commercially producing and selling printed copies from 1940 onwards.
  • Due to war-related scarcity of printing materials, sales were temporarily halted between 1946 and 1950 but resumed thereafter.
  • In 1952, the plaintiffs registered the picture under the Trade Marks Act.
  • The plaintiffs later discovered that the defendants were selling a picture titled "Bala Murugan," which they claimed was a close imitation of "Mayura Priya."
  • Despite being warned, the defendants refused to stop selling the allegedly infringing picture, leading to the lawsuit.
• Detailed Procedural Background:
  • The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking:
    • An injunction restraining the defendants from printing and selling the "Bala Murugan" picture.
    • Damages of Rs. 2000 for copyright infringement.
    • An account of the profits earned by the defendants from the sale of the infringing picture.
    • Seizure of unsold copies.
  • The defendants contended that:
    • Their picture was an independent artistic work created by their artist, D.W. 1, without reference to "Mayura Priya."
    • No copyright could exist in a depiction of Lord Balasubramanya, as it was a common religious theme.
  • During trial:
    • The plaintiffs abandoned their claim for trademark infringement since "Mayura Priya" was not used as a trademark.
    • The trial judge, Justice Ramaswami, ruled that "Mayura Priya" was an original work entitled to copyright protection.
    • However, he found that "Bala Murugan" was an independent creation and dismissed the suit.
    • The plaintiffs appealed.
• Issues Involved in the Case:
  • Whether "Mayura Priya" was entitled to copyright protection?
  • Whether "Bala Murugan" was a copy or colorable imitation of "Mayura Priya?"
  • Whether the similarities between the two pictures indicated an infringement of copyright?
• Detailed Submission of Parties:
  • The plaintiffs argued that:
    • "Mayura Priya" was an original work and had acquired copyright protection.
    • "Bala Murugan" was a direct imitation, with striking similarities in posture, expression, ornamentation, and other artistic elements.
    • They relied on expert testimony and photographic comparisons to show that "Bala Murugan" was derived from "Mayura Priya" using a reversed-copying technique.
  • The defendants maintained that:
    • Their artist created "Bala Murugan" independently based on conventional representations of Lord Balasubramanya.
    • Differences existed in color scheme, hand positioning, background details, and other elements.
    • No one could claim copyright over a depiction of a widely recognized religious figure.
    • Any similarities were either coincidental or derived from common artistic traditions.
• Detailed Discussion on Judgments:
  • Hanfsataengl v. W. H. Smith and Sons, 1905-1 Ch. 519 was cited to define what constitutes a "copy."
    • The test laid down was that a copy is one that comes so close to the original that it suggests the original to anyone who sees it.
    • The court examined whether "Bala Murugan" evoked "Mayura Priya" in the minds of viewers.
  • Corelli v. Gray, 1913-29 T.L.R. 570 was referred to for the principle that similarities between two works could arise from chance, a common source, or copying.
    • The key legal issue was whether the defendants’ work was derived from the plaintiffs’ work.
  • Hanfstaengl v. Baines and Co., 1895 A.C. 20 was cited to highlight that determining infringement often depends on the overall impression the allegedly infringing work creates rather than merely counting similarities and differences.

Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:
The appellate court disagreed with the trial judge's approach in assessing similarity. The correct test was whether a substantial part of the plaintiffs’ work was reproduced in the defendants’ work.

The court found striking similarities between the two pictures, particularly in the facial features of the deity, the positioning of ornaments, and the artistic details of the peacock and background. Expert evidence demonstrated that the defendants’ picture was likely created by reversing and slightly modifying "Mayura Priya," rather than being an independent artistic effort. The number of peacock feathers and their arrangement, the deity’s facial features, and the identical nature of ornaments further supported copying.

The appellate court noted that intelligent copying often introduces slight modifications to avoid direct duplication, but such changes do not negate infringement if substantial copying is evident. The judgment emphasized that copyright protects artistic skill and labor, even if the subject matter (a deity) is common. The defining feature is the artist’s unique expression, which was found to be copied in this case.

Final Decision:
The appellate court set aside the trial court’s judgment and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. An injunction was granted restraining the defendants from selling or reproducing "Bala Murugan." The court awarded Rs. 500 in damages, as agreed upon by both parties. The claim for an account of profits was denied, as copyright law does not permit both damages and an account of profits for the same infringement.

Law Settled in This Case:
An artistic work is entitled to copyright protection even if it depicts a common religious theme, provided it involves original skill and labor. A copy need not be an exact reproduction; substantial similarity, especially in prominent features, is sufficient to establish infringement. Intelligent copying, which introduces minor modifications, does not escape liability if the core artistic elements are replicated. The proper test for infringement is whether the alleged copy evokes the original work in the minds of ordinary viewers, not whether consumers would mistake one work for another. Expert testimony and forensic analysis, such as reversed copying techniques, can be used to establish infringement.

Case Title: C. Cunniah & Co. Vs Balraj & Co.
Date of Order: 4 February 1959
Case No.: C.S. No. 127 of 1953
Neutral Citation: AIR 1961 Mad 111
Name of Court: Madras High Court
Name of Judge: Hon'ble Justice Ganapatia Pillai

Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539