MARIE STOPES INTERNATIONAL Vs. PARIVAR SEVA SANSTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE application relates to expunction of Registration Numbers A35536/82, A35613/82, A35649/82, A35644/82, A35595/82, A35600/82, A43473/83, A43474/83, A43573/83, A44039/84 and A49940/89 under section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The matter was heard on 27th July, 2009 at New Delhi. According to the application for expunction, the petitioner (then known as "Population Services International") entered into a written agreement dated 2nd March, 1978 with the promoters of the Respondent No. 1 licensing to use the trade mark and trade name 'MARIE STOPES' and 'the Door Device'. The more important of the grounds on which the petitioner, a voluntary organization registered in U.K., has sought the expunction are as under: -

(2.) RESPONDENT in the written statement has denied the very existence of alleged agreement dated 2nd March, 1978. Respondent has submitted that the petitioner all along consented and encouraged the use of the impugned mark by the respondent. Respondent has submitted that the petitioner themselves is not the proprietor, owner and author of the said artistic work of MARIE STOPES INTERNATIONAL along with door Device. As per the allegations made in the petition and in the cases filed by the petitioner, the petitioner claims the legacy over the rights of the clinic called MARIE STOPES INTERNATIONAL. It is a mandate of section 19 of the Copyright Act to establish the ownership or authorship over the copyright in question. There is no assignment deed between the alleged predecessor Ms. Marie Stopes and the petitioner company. Respondent at length has dealt with the legal sustainability of the trade marks and copyright registrations recently obtained by the petitioner in India. In conclusion, the respondent has denied the grounds for expunction taken by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent filed copies of the impugned registration certificate per his letter dated 17.2.2009.

(3.) IN the rejoinder filed by Mr. Peter Lawton, consultant working with the petitioner, it has been stated by Mr. Lawton that he was not aware about the impugned registrations until those registrations were pleaded by the respondent in the pending suit CS(QS) No. 1691/2003. He has further denied that any assignment in the year 1978 was made by the authors of the impugned works to the respondent. He has generally denied the averments of the respondent in the written statement.