ADV ANCE P RO FE SSI O NAL

P RACT I CE

Krishika Lulla & Ors.

vs
Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta &
Anr.

Mentor: Mr. Mangesh Jadhav

TOPIC HIGHLIGHTS
Facts
Judicial History
Issue, Holding & Rule of the law
Arguments
Analysis
Conclusion
Reference
 FACTS

Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta (Respondent),had authored a story named ‘Desi

Boys’ and had registered the same with the Film Writers Association on
25.11.2008.
Mr. Devkatta forwarded the synopsis of the story to his friend Mr. Ramesh
Bhatnagar who further forwarded it one Mr. Ahsaan Sagar on 15.10.2009.
Mr. Devkatta saw the promos of a film titled ‘Desi Boyz’, after which he filed a
criminal complaint, as the adoption of the title Desi Boyz was an infringement
of his copyright in the film title Desi Boys.
 Court of Metropolitan Magistrate
Judicial
History Bombay High Court

Producers of the film (Appellants)

approached the Bombay High Court for
quashing of the complaint.

Supreme Court

High Court refused to quash the criminal

complaint, hence these appeals were filed by
the Appellants before the Supreme Court.
 Issue, Holding & Rule of the law

Issue Holding Rule of the law

Is the title of a No, the title of a Subject to the provisions of this section
literary work subject literary work is not and the other provisions of this Act,
copyright shall subsist throughout India in
matter of copyright? the subject matter of
the following classes of works, this is to
copyright.
say-
original literary, dramatic, musical and
artistic work
 Arguments
Arguments of behalf of the
Respondents:
Copyright in the title “Desi Boys” has
been infringed by the Appellant as it
is the soul of his story and copying it
takes away everything from his story.
Arguments of behalf of the
Appellants:
• There is no copyright in the title of
a story or for that matter a film
• The Appellants got the story
written by an author who was paid
for it .
• The story of the film bears no
similarity whatsoever with the
synopsis that was mailed, the
characters and the scenes and the
settings are also entirely different.
Analysis The title of a literary work being insufficient

The Court acknowledging the purpose for

protecting a literary work, stated that
protection cannot possibly be given to merely
a single word, but some words that
collectively form a literary work

a literary work should be literary in nature i.e.

“concerning the writing, study, or content of
literature, especially of the kind valued for
quality of form”, which the title in question
lacked.
The Court then highlighting the lack of
originality in the title due to the usage of
commonplace terms ‘desi and ‘boys’
CONCLUSION

The conclusion of the matter is that a copyright

cannot be claimed in the title of a work, however,
this is possible in case the title itself is original and
in the nature of an invention. To establish
infringement, one will have to delve into the
originality of it and substantial copying by the
defendant. If a well-known title of a film is used
without authority, the owner’s remedy is likely to lie
in passing off only.
The Appeal, therefore, in the instant case was
allowed and the criminal complaint was quashed.
REFERENCES

HANDBOOK FOR COPYRIGHT CASE DETAILS

ACT https://www.bananaip.com/ip-news-
http://copyright.gov.in/documents/handbo center/copyright-krishika-lulla-ors-vs-
ok.html shyam-vithalrao-devkatta-anr/

INSIGHT ON COPYRIGHT ACT CASE DETAILS

http://www.rna-cs.com/an-insight-into-the- https://indiancaselaws.wordpress.com/201
copyright-act-1957-and-the-rules-made- 5/11/17/krishika-lulla-and-ors-v-shyam-
therein/ vithalrao-devkatta-and-ors/
 AARUSHI AGARWAL
ANURATI SAXENA

Presented by
KUMAR ABHIMANYU
MEGHA CHHATTANI
SARTHAK SHUKLA
VARSHICKA AGARWAL