Suit under copyright against The Nation dismissed
LAHORE- The court of Additional District Judge, Lahore Ataullah Kausar, has dismissed a suit filed by daily The News (News Publications Private Limited) against daily The Nation, (Nation Publication Private Limited) claiming damages under the Copyright Ordinance 1962.
Alleging that The Nation in its magazine “Young Nation” had in 1991, published cartoons, graphics, caricatures, articles and features of which the plaintiff company was holding exclusive copyright for publication. The plaintiff had claimed damages of Rs 24,000 from the defendants. While dismissing the suit, the Court observed that the plaintiff, has not been able to established whether the copyright as claimed by it were registered in Pakistan according to the law of the land and that there was any violation by the defendant as such.
The defendant represented by senior advocate Sheikh Maqbool Ahmed, and assisted by Sheikh Naveed Masud, strongly raised a number of objections to oppose the suit, describing the plaint as vague. The counsel asserted that the defendant was obtaining from its independent sources many features and articles for publication in “Young Nation” and thus it did not commit any violation of any copyright whatsoever. The counsel maintained of the plaintiff and that the defendants through valid contract of publication, had received the cartoons, features etc. from M/s Information and Media Resources, Affiliations Networks, New York, USA. They pleaded for dismissal of the suit.
The court framed issues in view of the divergent views of the parties. The Court examined Chief Accountant of the plaintiff who also produced photocopies of the contract he claimed to have entered with various companies. Next appeared the Administrative Officer and special attorney of the plaintiff.
Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad however did not opt for producing any evidence in defence. On a plea taken by the plaintiff in September last the court gave last opportunity to the plaintiff to produce the original record of the documents the copies of which its witnesses had earlier placed before the court and had assured to produce the originals. At one stage, the Court on the premise that the plaintiff had put on record only one document dated May 22, 1990 while addressing to its Chief Executive Shakeelur Rahman, observed that the plaintiff has, since, failed to avail itself of the opportunity to produce the originals of the remaining documents, therefore, to that extent, the consequences shall follow.
After hearing the parties, the court observed that the copyright law is a special law and that nothing has been produced by the plaintiff to show that articles in question were in the first place, owned by the original owners from whom it allegedly had acquired the right to publish, produce and reproduce or that original owners had any exclusive copy rights whatsoever. Secondly the court held that the plaintiff has failed to show that its rights have been registered in Pakistan as per the law of the land.
The court dilating upon the procedure for copyright set in sections 9, 38, 39 of the ordinance said when the plaintiff company was claiming its right under the Ordinance, registration of the copyright was necessary.
And no evidence is on record that the copyright of the original owner of the articles in dispute or for that purpose the copyright of the plaintiff/company has been registered under the provisions of the said Ordinance, the court pointed out and added, so in terms of section 9 no such right would be deemed to be in existence in favour of the plaintiff.
The Court referred to the statement of the plaintiff witness that documents produced to indicate agreement between Jang Group of Publications and the foreign company were not registered and held that this factor proved the issue against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
As to the documents 1, 2 and 3 the originals of which were produced by the plaintiff leaving others, the court observed that no executants or any witness has been produced in evidence to show that per agreement/contract, the plaintiff company was authorised to publish, produce or reproduce the same.
The plaintiff has failed to discharge the heavy onus of proof laid on it, observed the court adding, even Shakeelur Rahman did not, appear in the witness box to corroborate the contents of the agreement/contracts and instead only photocopies and not the originals ones of the payment for the articles at dispute, were produced. It is not a sufficient evidence, held the court observing that in the absence of the cogent, convincing and strong evidence, it cannot be said that articles in question in Pakistan.
In evidence, this fact came on the Court record that the plaintiff had also issued legal notice to Dailies The Leader, The Muslim, and The Frontier Post but no suit was filed against these newspapers except against The Nation.
As an upshot, the court held that the defendant was not liable to render any accounts whatsoever and the plaintiff was also not entitled to the damages it claimed.
Source: The Nation
Date:1/9/2001
” 
” 
” 
” 
