Skip to content

CS Executive · Economic, Commercial and Intellectual Property Laws · Intellectual Property Rights

Meera Pictures sues Kunal for selling unauthorised copies of a Hindi novel. Kunal proves that when he sold the copies he was not aware, and had no reasonable ground for believing, that copyright subsisted in the novel. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, which relief remains available to the owner?

The owner can get an injunction and a decree for the whole or part of the profits made by the defendant from selling infringing copies. Because the defendant proves he was unaware and had no reasonable ground to believe copyright subsisted, damages and other remedies are not available.

  1. AAn injunction and a decree for the whole or part of the profits made by Kunal from selling the infringing copiesCorrect
  2. BFull damages and an account of profits, as in any other infringement
  3. COnly the costs of the suit, with no injunction
  4. DNo relief at all, because innocent infringement is a complete defence

Explanation

Under the proviso to section 55(1), an innocent defendant who proves no awareness and no reasonable ground to believe copyright subsisted leaves the plaintiff with only an injunction and a decree for the whole or part of the profits from sale of infringing copies, as the court deems reasonable. Damages are therefore excluded, so the option granting full damages is wrong. Innocence is not a complete defence.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Intellectual Property Rights shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Intellectual Property RightsFree diagnostic mock

More Intellectual Property Rights questions