Iit K Memo

TC-XX
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR NATIONAL

MOOT COURT COMPETITION, VERSION V - 2024
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF FEDERAL

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF JAMBUDEEP (FDRJ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
PANDIT PARVEK JOSHI AND ORS. …APPELLANTS
V.
SMT. CHANDRANI SEN AND ORS. …RESPONDENTS
UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF FDRJ
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, VERSION V - 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sr.No. Table of Contents Pg.No.

1. Index of Authorities 3
2. Statement of Jurisdiction 4
3. Statement of Facts 5
4. Issues Raised 7
5. Arguments Advance 8
6. Prayer 14
2|Page
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
List of Cases-
1. Cary v. Kearsley (1802) 170 ER 679

2. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak 2008 1 SCC 1
3. Feist Publications v. Rural Tel. Service, 499 U.S. 340, 348 (1991)
4. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. 18 USPQ 2d. 1275
5. General Education v. B. Malini Mallya (ILR 2008 KAR 1074)
6. Institute foe Inner Studies v. Charlotte Anderson 2014 (57) PTC 228 (Del)
7. NRI Film Production Associates v. Twentieth Century Fox Films ILR 2004 KAR 4530
8. R G Anand v. M/s Delux Films And Ors. 1978 AIR 1613
9. Samir Kansal v. Prashant Mehta Case No.: CS(COMM) 39/2022 Order Dated- 19th
January, 2022
10. University of London Press Ltd. V. University Tutorial Ltd. [(1916) 2 Ch.D.601]
11. Walter v. Lane [(1900) AC 539]
Statutes-
1. The Copyrights Act, 1957

Online Resources-
1. SCC Online
2. Manupatra
3. Live Law
4. Mondaq
3|Page
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court has been invoked under Article 136 of The Constitution
of FDRJ.
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces.
4|Page
5|Page
STATEMENT OF FACTS
FDRJ's Legal System:
- FDRJ has laws in agreement with India and implements international obligations
under various conventions.
- The patent office in FDRJ follows guidelines similar to those in India for examining
patent applications in the field of computer-related inventions.
Pandit Pravek Joshi's Achievements:
- Received training from Ustad Aabid Khan and is knowledgeable in Hindustani and
Carnatic music.
- Received FDRJ’s highest civilian award, Jambudeep Ratna, in 2018.
Teaching Manual and IPR:
- Pandit Joshi developed teaching methods based on ancient musicological texts and
collaborated with Thiru Adigaman to create the Sastriya Sangeet Shiksha Pranali
manual.
- They obtained copyright registration for the book but faced criticism from
some musicological quarters.
Business Method Patent Application:
- Pandit Joshi and Thiru Adigaman applied for a business method patent in the U.S.A.
before publishing their book.
- The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a patent for a system for imparting
blended music over a network.
Music Bots Private Limited (MBPL):
- Pandit Joshi and Thiru Adigaman established MBPL, engaged in developing
6|Page
AI applications for music training.
7|Page
- MBPL used the music training methods in an AI application under an exclusive license.
Patent Application for AI System:
- Pandit Joshi, Elisaiyan, and MBPL applied for a patent for a system for
imparting blended music over a network with additional features.
- The Patent Office of FDRJ issued a patent for the same.
History of E Adhyayana Private Limited (EAPL):
- The company was founded in 2015 by Smt. Chandrani Sen to provide online
education services for various subjects including science, arts, and commerce
for grade 11 and 12 students.
- Initially, the services were paid and by March 2020, the user base had
reached around 2 Lakh students.
Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic:
- The outbreak of the pandemic affected teaching and learning activities,

particularly in the field of Hindustani and Carnatic Classical music.
- In response to this, EAPL launched a comprehensive e teaching and learning

app called E Raga Talim in January 2023.
Legal Disputes and Trial:
- Pandit Joshi, Thiru Elisaiyan Adigaman, and Music Bots Private Limited
(MBPL) filed a suit against EAPL for alleged copyright and patent infringements
related to the app E Raga Talim.
- The trial court found no infringement of copyright, revoked the patent, and
dismissed the case with costs.
Appeals and Supreme Court Proceedings:
- The plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Division Bench, which was subsequently
dismissed.
- A Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed before the Supreme Court of FDRJ,
and the case is currently up for final hearing with specific issues related to
copyright infringement and patent validity being considered. 8|Page
9|Page
ISSUES RAISED
WHETHER THE APP “E-RAGA TALIM” INFRINGES

COPYRIGHT IN THE BOOK “SASTRIYA SANGEET
SHIKSHA PRANALI”.
10 | P a g e
ARGUMENTS ADVANCE
ISSUE 1- WHETHER THE APP “E-RAGA TALIM” INFRINGES COPYRIGHT IN

THE BOOK “SASTRIYA SANGEET SHIKSHA PRANALI”.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of FDRJ that the app “E-
RAGA TALIM” launched by the technical company named E-Adhyayana Private
Limited (EAPL) infringes the copyright of the book “SASTRIYA SANGEET
SHIKSHA PRANALI” which has been copyrighted by its joint authors Pandit Joshi
and Thiru Adigaman.
I. THE BOOK SASTRIYA SANGEET SHIKSHA PRANALI IS AN

ORIGINAL WORK OF AUTHORSHIP
According to the US Copyright Office, Copyright is a type of intellectual property

that protects original works of authorship as soon as an author fixes the work in a
tangible form of expression. Moreover the Webster Dictionary explains copyright as
the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell or distribute the matter and form
of a literary, musical, or artistic work,etc.
 As per Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957-
Works in copyright subsist-
Subject to the provisions of this section and the other provisions of this Act,
copyright shall subsist throughout India in the following classes of works, that is
to say,—
(a) original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works;
(b) cinematograph films; and

11 | P a g e
(c) sound recording
1. It is humbly submitted that in the context of copyright law the term original denotes
something that is not fake, or which is not an imitation or a copy of some other work.
Moreover, copyright does not deal with the originality of idea but the originality of
expression of that idea. As adopted in University of London Press Ltd. v. University
Tutorials Press Ltd., a work is original if it is not copied from anyone and if it is original
from the author. Herein, Pandit Joshi and Thiru Adigaman developed and employed certain
methods based on a holistic understanding and synthesis of various ancient musicological
texts including Sangita- Ratnakara and the teachings of Purandara Dasa to form the
manual. Hence they had been originated from them.
US’s Sweat of the Brow Doctrine
As held in Fiest Publications, Inc. V. Rural Telephone Service Co. the U.S Supreme Court
out rightly stated that for a work to be original it must demonstrate a “modicum of
creativity”. This doctrine derives that originality consists in a work where there is a
sufficient amount of intellectual creativity and judgment involved to create that work. The
court also highlighted that the level of creativity need not be high but a minimum level of
creativity should be there for copyright protection.
It is hereby submitted that in the present case, Pandit Joshi and Thiru Adigaman completed
their work of forming a manual after the hardwork of several years and even during the
difficult times of Covid-19 pandemic. The level of creativity is to be highlighted by the due
synthesis and understanding of the ancient musicological texts and their interpretation by
Pandit Joshi intertwined with his learnings over the course of decades to develop the
manual book “ Sastriya Sangeet Shiksha Pranali”.
12 | P a g e
The Doctrine of Merger
In the case, Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak2 the Supreme Court finally, breaking
away from the past discarded the 'Sweat of the Brow doctrine and shifted to Modicum of
Creativity' approach thereby introducing the notion of "flavour of minimum requirement of
creativity". The Court approved copyright protection to the trimmings and inputs made by
the editors of SCC but at the same time pointed out that the orders and judgments of the
Courts are in public domain and everybody has a right to use and publish them and
therefore no copyright can be claimed on the same.
The Court, moreover, recognized that the headnotes, footnotes, and long notes added by the
appellants were original works, as they involved skill, judgment, and creativity. The Court
also observed that these additions did not merge with the original judgments, as they could
be expressed in different ways. Therefore, the Court granted protection to the appellants for
these additions, and restrained the respondents from copying them.
The court also held that for a derivative work to receive copyright protection, it must be
demonstrated that the derivative work is more than just a copy of the original. It must
contain the author’s independent skill apart from capital and labour. The court wanted to
identify the originality of work done in SCC and they determined that the “modicum of
creativity” was too high of a standard whereas the “sweat of the brow”test was too low of a
standard. According to the court, skill meant those which are not trivial and are substantial
and judgment meant the use of resources that went beyond the mere expenditure of labour
and capital.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble bench that in the present case, the manual
book titled “ Sastriya Sangeet Shiksha Pranali” consisted of the teaching of Pandit
Joshi over the course of many decades, his knowledge of music that has been
developed by the deep understanding of the domain because of hardwork and 13 | P a g e
dedication. Moreover the manual consisted of interpretations from historic ancient
musicial sources, thus having the adequate level of creativity for it to be held original.
II. COPYRIGHT OF LITERARY WORK
(i) It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble bench that as per section 2(o) of the
copyright act,1957-
Section 2(o): "literary work" includes computer programmes, tables and compilations
including computer databases."
(ii) Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957 states the works in which copyright shall
subsist which include literary work under S.13(1)(a)13 of the Act. The definition is
inclusive in nature and not exhaustive in nature therefore it is not just limited to
computer programmes, tables and compilations including computer databases.
(iii) Moreover according to the University of Melbourne website, Literary works includes
books, anthologies, journal and newspaper articles, reports, conference papers, working
papers, computer software and programs, letters, emails, novels, poetry, song lyrics,
databases, tables and compilations. Even short works such as abstracts, individual poems,
dictionary meanings or encyclopedia entries are protected by copyright.
(iv) According to Section 2(d) of the Act the author of the literary work is the person
who wrote it. According to Section 17 of the Act the Author is the first Owner of the
copyright. Moreover in the case of Institute foe Inner Studies v. Charlotte Anderson,
the Delhi High Court stated that for the Joint Authorship to exist, the following
essentials have to be fulfilled-
1. Collaboration
2.Non-Distinctive Contribution
3. Creative Input.
(v) It is also submitted that under Section 2(z) of th e act-
“work of joint authorship” means a work produced by the collaboration of two or
more authors in which the contribution of one author is not distinct from the
contribution of the other author or authors;
Therefore in the present case Pandit Joshi and Thiru Adigaman are deemed to be the
14 | P a g e
joint authors of “Sastriya Sangeet Shiksha Pranali”
III. INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT
(i) As mentioned in Section 2(m) of the act –
“infringing copy” means—
(i) in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, a reproduction thereof

otherwise than in the form of a cinematographic film;
(ii) in relation to a cinematographic film, a copy of the film made on any medium by
any means;
(iii)in relation to a sound recording, any other recording embodying the same sound
recording, made by any means;
(iv) in relation to a programme or performance in which such a broadcast

reproduction right or a performer’s right subsists under the provisions of this Act, the
sound recording or a cinematographic film of such programme or performance,
if such reproduction, copy or sound recording is made or imported in contravention of

the provisions of this Act;]
(ii) As mentioned in Section 51 of the act-
Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed—
(a) when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright or the
Registrar of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a
licence so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under this
Act—
(i) does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the
owner of the copyright, or 1
[(ii) permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the
public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the
work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such
communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright; or]
(b) when any person—

15 | P a g e
(i) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers
for sale or hire, or
(ii) distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect
prejudicially the owner of the copyright, or
(iii) by way of trade exhibits in public, or
(iv) imports 2*** into India, any infringing copies of the work: 3 [Provided that
nothing in sub-clause
(iv) shall apply to the import of one copy of any work for the private and domestic use
of the importer.]
Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, the reproduction of a literary,

dramatic, musical or artistic work in the form of a cinematograph film shall be
deemed to be an “infringing copy”.
Test of infringement
(i) In the case Cary v. Kearsley22 the test of Animus Furandi was discussed. In criminal
law it is used dishonestly. The term 'animus furandi' means the intent to steal. It is true
that one of the objectives of copyright is to allow others to build freely upon the
previous works. But it does not give anyone the right to appropriate the fruits of
someone else's labour under the garb of "building upon". If you take away the central
idea or the underlying foundation of the work and add mere embellishments to it- it
would reflect that you had intent to steal.
(ii) It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble bench that, in the present case, the
Defendants have taken away the central idea or the underlying foundation of the work of the
appeallants and have added some cosmetic variations and supplements to it which clearly indicates
that they had an intent to steal.
(iii) It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble bench that E-Raga Talim app clearly
qualifies the Test of impression on the viewer or audience test or ordinary observer test-
It was pointed out in Hanfastaengal v. W. H. Smith & Son5, that "a copy is that which conies
so near to the original as to give to every person seeing it the idea created by the original." If
16 | P a g e
after having seen the picture a person forms a definite opinion and gets a dominant
impression that it has been based on or taken from the original play that will be sufficient to
constitute a violation of the copyright. One of the surest and the safest test to determine
whether or not there has been a violation of copyright is to see if the reader, spectator or the
viewer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an
unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original.
(iv) It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble bench that in the present case appellants got
to know from several quarters that “E-Raga Talim” incorporated and used the music
training methods narrated in “Sastriya Sangeet Shiksha Pranali” with apparent
cosmetic variations and supplements. So, lot many people who have read Sastriya Sangeet
Shiksha Pranali when subscribed to E- the Raga Talim app got an impression that it has been based
on the book upon which only the appellants have the copyright.
Scene a faire and Doctrine of merger
Scene a faire-
(i) In the case of Mansoob Haider vs. Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd. And others7Where Mansoob
Haider, a professional scriptwriter alleged that the film Dhoom 3, contravenes his
copyright in his script “once”. The court held, that the rubbering scene featuring Hritik
Roshan on the trainwould be protected under Scene a faire.
(ii)It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble bench that in the present case the methods used
by Plaintiff does not constitute Scene a faire. In fact ,when it comes to teaching the way a
person teaches depends on his or her years of experience, knowledge, skill, understanding of
the subject and the communication skills of that particular teacher and number of such other
factors which vary from person to person and cannot be just one method only.
Doctrine of Merger
(i)According to this doctrine when an idea can only be expressed in a certain way, the
expression is not protectable- Frybarger v. international business Mach. Corp.8
(ii)It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble bench that, in the present case the methods
used by the Plaintiff are not the only methods which can used for imparting teaching of
Hindustani and Carnatic Classical music. Taking the example of any other subject like
17 | P a g e
science, every teacher has their own method of teaching which is based on their own
experience, their own deep understanding and love for the subject, their skill of making
students understand etc. some teachers have some particular technique for example usage of
one particular funny acronym made by them which students like, and thus, making the class
more fun and interesting, eventually making it easy for students to understand. And
similarly, in the present case, which is dealing with the methods of teaching of Hindustani
and Carnatic classical music there can be number of methods of teaching.
(iii)The methods used by the Plaintiff are completely based on his three decades of
experience in teaching this particular subject, training from world-renowned vocalist,
own knowledge and understanding of various ancient musicological texts.
(iv)And therefore, the experience of the person behind making E- Raga application cannot
be ignored. Defendant having no background of such a subject comes with a method
which took years of a person’s hard-work. It is being humbly brought before the light of
the court that During May 2020 defendant approached plaintiffs to advise her in
developing e-teaching and learning tools and platform for imparting training in Hindustani
and Carnatic Classical music. After few initial online meetings with Plaintiffs, she
abruptly stopped communicating with them and after few months she came up with the an
application based on the music teaching methods narrated in the book “Sastriya Sangeet
Shiksha Pranali” on which Plaintiffs have copyright.
THEREFORE THE APP “E-RAGA TALIM” INFRINGES THE COPYRIGHT OF THE

BOOK
“SASTRIYA SANGEET SHIKSHA PRANALI”
18 | P a g e

Iit K Memo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iit K Memo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC-XX

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR NATIONAL

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF FEDERAL

IN THE MATTER OF:

PANDIT PARVEK JOSHI AND ORS. …APPELLANTS

SMT. CHANDRANI SEN AND ORS. …RESPONDENTS

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF FDRJ

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

Sr.No. Table of Contents Pg.No.

1. Cary v. Kearsley (1802) 170 ER 679

1. The Copyrights Act, 1957

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.—

FDRJ's Legal System:

Pandit Pravek Joshi's Achievements:

- Received FDRJ’s highest civilian award, Jambudeep Ratna, in 2018.

Teaching Manual and IPR:

Business Method Patent Application:

Music Bots Private Limited (MBPL):

- Pandit Joshi and Thiru Adigaman established MBPL, engaged in developing

Patent Application for AI System:

- The Patent Office of FDRJ issued a patent for the same.

History of E Adhyayana Private Limited (EAPL):

Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic:

- The outbreak of the pandemic affected teaching and learning activities,

- In response to this, EAPL launched a comprehensive e teaching and learning

Legal Disputes and Trial:

Appeals and Supreme Court Proceedings:

WHETHER THE APP “E-RAGA TALIM” INFRINGES

ISSUE 1- WHETHER THE APP “E-RAGA TALIM” INFRINGES COPYRIGHT IN

I. THE BOOK SASTRIYA SANGEET SHIKSHA PRANALI IS AN

According to the US Copyright Office, Copyright is a type of intellectual property

 As per Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957-

Works in copyright subsist-

(a) original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works;

(b) cinematograph films; and

US’s Sweat of the Brow Doctrine

The Doctrine of Merger

II. COPYRIGHT OF LITERARY WORK

III. INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT

(i) As mentioned in Section 2(m) of the act –

“infringing copy” means—

(i) in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, a reproduction thereof

(iv) in relation to a programme or performance in which such a broadcast

if such reproduction, copy or sound recording is made or imported in contravention of

(ii) As mentioned in Section 51 of the act-

Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed—

(b) when any person—

(iii) by way of trade exhibits in public, or

Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, the reproduction of a literary,

Scene a faire and Doctrine of merger

THEREFORE THE APP “E-RAGA TALIM” INFRINGES THE COPYRIGHT OF THE

“SASTRIYA SANGEET SHIKSHA PRANALI”

You might also like