VICCO LABORATORIES AND ANR. versus ART COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

VICCO LABORATORIES AND ANR. versus ART COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

Petitioners failed to prove that respondents were their agents or employees for production of the serial; payments were for sponsorship and advertising benefits, not cost of production or employment. Copyright and title thus vested in respondents, not petitioners, under Section 17 of Copyright Act, 1957. No agency or employment was established; findings of lower courts on appreciation of evidence are correct and not interfered with under Article 136.

Parties
Petitioner: Vicco Laboratories; Respondent: Art Commercial Advertising Pvt. Ltd.; Respondent: Union of India (Doordarshan)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Final Disposition by Supreme Court
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Copyright Ownership, Production Agreements, Television Serial Sponsorship, Agency Relationship
Intellectual Property Media and Entertainment Law Copyright Ownership Production Agreements Television Serial Sponsorship Agency Relationship

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vicco Laboratories

Petitioner

Art Commercial Advertising Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Union of India (Doordarshan)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Final Disposition by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether petitioners are entitled to ownership and copyright in respect of TV serial 'Yeh Jo Hai Zindagi'
  2. 2 Whether respondents produced the serial as agents or employees of the petitioners under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957

Ratio Decidendi

Petitioners failed to prove that respondents were their agents or employees for production of the serial; payments were for sponsorship and advertising benefits, not cost of production or employment. Copyright and title thus vested in respondents, not petitioners, under Section 17 of Copyright Act, 1957. No agency or employment was established; findings of lower courts on appreciation of evidence are correct and not interfered with under Article 136.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • No costs imposed.
  • No interference by Supreme Court with orders of High Court and trial court affirming that copyright ownership vests in respondents.