Nowadays, copyright infringement has become a serious issue in US. For more information regarding Copyright, Content Removal and DMCA Takedown Service in US contact Lex Protector. We can help you to send a DMCA takedown notice to infringing website and host.

1. Movie title has no copyright: Madras High Court
Now-a-days, copyright infringement has becomea serious issuein the Indian
scenario. The term copyrightmeans an exclusive right of the owner/author of
the work preventing others to copy the artistic, literary and dramatic work.
Problem comes in finding out the scopeof the work on which copyright
subsists.
In a recent case namely, M/S.Lyca Productions vs J.Manimaran on 22 February
2018 Madras HighCourt held that copyrightdoesn’tsubsistin movie titles. It
not only decided the scopeof copyrightbut also states that the rules of the
trade association not binding upon non-members as well.
The events of the cases started in 2011, when a Tamil movie named “KARU”
got copyrightregistered by Plaintiff. Now, according to Film & Television
Producers Guild of South India, once the title of the movie is registered no
other member of the association can use that name in their movie.
On other hands, another movie titled “LYCAVIN KARU” of Lyca Productions
started advertising which resulted in conflict with the plaintiff. Later on the
plaintiff approached to the High Courtto seek a permanentinjunction against
the defendant.

2. The question aroseis whether the movie titles holds the copyrightor not. The
plaintiff stated that they have copyrightover the movie title “KARU” and the
registered title cannot be used by adding and suffixand prefix. They further
urged that using similar title to the movie can be termed as unfair competition.
The term unfair competition is a deceptive business practice, which would give
a false impression in the minds of the viewer that the similar movie title has
connection with each other.
The judgement was based on two cases such as Krishika Lulla and others v.
ShyamVithalrao Devkatta and another and T.Pandiyan Arivali v. Kamal Hassan.
The two cases are of paramountimportance, because in the earlier case it was
held that “a title is not an original literary work” and in the later it was held
that “The definitions in sections 13 and 14 of the copyrightact, 1957, do notgo
beyond the literary work or musicalwork and the title ordinarily of any such
work is not a partof composition or work of the author or the composer.
His workmanship is confined to the work and not to the title”. In the current
case there is no originality in the title “KARU”. KARU means “foetus”, which is
common. The title has not acquired any goodwillor reputation. The court also
considered the view taken by the American courts.
Now American Courts have taken uniform view that title alone of a literary
work cannotbe protected by CopyrightLaw. Copying of a title alone, and not
the plot, characterization, dialogue, song etc. is not the subjectof Copyright
Law. Thus, a copyrighton a literary work would not include exclusive right to
use the title on any other work.”
Itwas held by the Madras High court that there subsists no copyrightover the
title. The producers arenot mandated to become the member of the society.
Membership to such societies are optional, thus this doesn’tbound the non-
members to follow their rules.
For more information regarding Copyright, Content Removal and DMCA
Takedown Service inUS contact Lex Protector.