Court finds plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie case; original publishing agreements deemed operative despite expiry and co-publishing arrangement
In a significant judgment delivered on August 27, 2026, the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Krishna Rao, dismissed the plaintiffs' application seeking interim injunction against New Central Book Agency Private Limited and others in a copyright infringement dispute concerning the publication rights of two educational books: "Applied English Grammar and Composition Anglo Bengali (For High Schools)" and "Beginner's Applied English Grammar, Composition & Translation (Anglo-Bengali-For Beginners)."
The plaintiffs, Pares Chandra Das and another, who are the original authors and copyright holders, contended that the defendants continued to publish, print, market, and distribute the said books without authorization after the expiry of the original publishing agreements dated June 15, 2001, and April 22, 2002. They claimed the agreements were invalid beyond five years as per Section 19(5) of the Copyright Act, 1957, since no definite term was mentioned. The plaintiffs further asserted that they had terminated the agreements effective from August 24, 2023, and accused the defendants of infringing copyright by publishing revised editions after this date.
However, the defendants argued that the original agreements granted them exclusive publishing rights, which continued to be recognized beyond the initial five-year period, with no objections raised by the plaintiffs for over a decade. They highlighted a Co-Publishing Agreement entered into in August 2020 between the defendant and a third party, Katha-O-Kahini Private Limited, which was executed with the consent of the plaintiff. This agreement was for a three-year term and was intended to facilitate publication during the COVID-19 pandemic period. They pointed out that the plaintiffs did not provide the mandatory one-year advance notice for termination as indicated in a letter dated August 23, 2020, and that the plaintiffs had allowed the defendants to continue publishing under the original agreements until recently.
Justice Krishna Rao, after a detailed examination of the facts and legal provisions, observed that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case or the balance of convenience necessary for granting interim relief. The Court noted that the original agreements did not specify a time period, but under Section 19(5) of the Copyright Act, such assignments are deemed to last five years. The plaintiffs’ inaction from 2007 to 2020, coupled with their consent to the co-publishing arrangement, weakened their claims of infringement. Furthermore, the Court found that the co-publishing agreement did not extinguish the original contracts, as the royalty provisions indicated ongoing recognition of the original publishing agreements.
The Court also highlighted procedural issues, including the plaintiffs’ failure to join all relevant copyright holders as parties to the suit and their non-compliance with the one-year notice period for termination. Given these factors, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated any irreparable harm that would justify an injunction.
Consequently, the Calcutta High Court refused the interim injunction prayed for by the plaintiffs and dismissed the application, allowing the defendants to continue with the publication activities under the existing agreements until the matter is finally adjudicated.
This ruling underscores the importance of timely enforcement of copyright and contractual rights and the necessity of adhering to statutory provisions such as advance notice requirements and proper joinder of parties in copyright disputes.
Bottom Line:
Copyright Law - Termination of publishing agreements - Plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie case and balance of convenience for interim relief. Agreements allowing publishing rights continued without objection for years; lack of one-year advance notice for termination questioned.
Statutory provision(s):
Copyright Act, 1957 Sections 19(1), 19(5), 54, Contract Act, 1872 Section 62
