JUDGMENT
Sat Pal, J.
(1) Both these applications have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedures. Since the relief claimed in the applications is the same, both the applications are being disposed of by this common order.
(2) In Ia 12434/92 it has been prayed that defendants be restrained from selling the prospectus “Fashion” and giving further advertisement with regard to “International Centre for Fashion Studies Affiliated to the Clothing and Footwear Institute CFI-London (U.K.)”. This application came up for hearing on 12th (a), 3 October, 1992 and on that date an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted restraining the defendants from using the name of CFI-London, U.K. in their prospectus. The defendants were, however, given liberty to use the said name in case they had been affiliated by due authorisation with the said Institute.
(3) In Ia 6685/93 it has been stated that the plaintiff has now obtained the copyright of the prospectus titled “Fashion” under the copyright Act, 1957 and it has been prayed that the defendants be restrained from publishing, promoting, selling or distributing the prospectus titled “fashion” in any manner public ally or privately.
(4) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an agreement dated 15.6.1990 was executed between M/s,Ratandeep Shanti Shyam Educational & Professional Trust (plaintiff No.1) through its President, Shri Ratandeep Lal on the one hand and M/s. Educational Society of Professionals and Vocations (defendant No.1) through its President Shri Avtar Singh on the other hand and in terms of this agreement plaintiff No. 1 which was affiliated to CFI-London and was an expert in the field of Fashion Technology was provided with building, class room and other allied existing facilities by defendant No. 1 for the purpose of running its classes in the building at South Extension Part-1, New Delhi and the building premises at Malviya Nagar, KhirKee where the defendant No.1 was holding classes for its institutes in the name of “International Technology for Women”.
(5) As per terms of the said agreement dated 15.6.90, plaintiff No. 1 was permitted to run the classes for various courses related to fashion technology between 2.00 Pm to 10.00 Pm on week days by defendant No. 1 and on account of this, the plaintiff No. 1 was required to pay to defendant No. 1 on half yearly basis 25% of the net profits of the Institute running under the name of “International Institute of Fashion Technology” (hereinafter referred to IIFT) for the first year and thereafter 40% of the net profits of the IIFT as consideration for providing the facilities of using class rooms/office/computers/telephones/electricity/building/furniture and other facilities. The plaintiff No. 1, however, had no right to sublet or otherwise part-with possession of building of defendant No.1 and at the time when the institute under the name of IIFT was not operating from there, the plaintiff No. 1 was to vacate the building and hand-over the peaceful possession of the same to defendant No. 1. It was also the terms of the agreement, that the defendant No. 1 would not interfere in any manner wih the internal affairs of the plaintiff No. 1 with regard to tuition. fee to be charged from the students. In terms of Clause 10 of the agreement, the goodwill of the institute of Fashion Technology “shall be calculated at any time at two years purchase of average profits of previous three completed years or less as the case may be.” The goodwill was to be shared between plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 in the ratio then prevalent for dividing business profits.
(6) As per averments made in the plaint, IIFT has been publishing the prospectus titled “Fashion” since 1990. It is then stated that the plaintiff also applied for the registration of the copyright of the plaintiffs’ work being the “Fashion” prospectus of IIFT.
(7) It appears that certain disputes arose between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff shifted its activities from the building of defendant No. 1 to another building in South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi in July, 1991. It is alleged by the plaintiff that on 8.1.1992, the plaintiff was surprised to notice an advertisement in the “Hindustan Times” newspaper that another Fashion Institute in the name of International Centre for Fashion Studies had started operating from the same building where the plaintiffs previously used to hold their classes. On enquiry it was revealed that the prospectus used by the said “International Centre for Fashion Studies” was almost the reproduction of the prospectus used by the plaintiffs with minor changes. It is then alleged that on or about 12th September, 1992 plaintiff was informed that Unit of defendant No.2 Chandigarh Institute of Fashion Technology created again by defendant No.3, had opened a Chandigarh Branch and through the said Branch operated classes on fashion studies. The plaintiff came to know that the defendants were not only giving fraudulently and misleading advertisement in newspaper in Chandigarh that the defendants Unit- Chandigarh Institute of Fashion Technology-was affiliated and associated with CFI-London but also copied the prospectus of the plaintiffs Unit-IIFT titled “Fashion” in toto and thereby infringed the copyright of the plaintiffs and also passing off as an Institute having affiliation
and association with CFI-London (UK) and as such was similar to that of the plaintiffs Unit IIFT. Hence the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants.
(8) Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs submitted that in terms of agreement dated 15.6.90, the defendant No. 1 had provided building, Class room etcetra to the plaintiffs and in lieu thereof, the plaintiff No. 1 was required to pay to defendant No. 1, 25% of the net profits. He further submitted that in terms of the agreement, the defendant No. 1 was not to interefere in any manner with the internal affairs of defendant No. 1. He also submitted that from the agreement, it was clear that the plaintiff No. 1 had its subsidiary Unit “IIFT” which was affiliated to London and plaintiff No.2 was an expert in the field of fashion technology.
(9) Learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiffs before filing the present suit had applied for registration of the copyright of the plaintiffs’ work being the “Fashion” prospectus of International Institute of Technology and during the pendency of the suit, they had been granted the registration of the copyright under Section 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957 on 16.4.93. He, therefore, contended that the plaintiff No. 1 had thus become the owner of the copyright of the literary work contained in the prospectus titled “Fashion” and the action of the defendants amounted to in fringung the copyright of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel also drew my attention to letter dated 26.10.92 addressed by Director CFI-London to defendant No.3 and submitted that from this letter it was evident that defendant No. 1 was not affiliated to CFI-London and the said defendant was making misrepresentation and this misrepresentation was aimed to injure the business and goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs. He therefore, contended that the defendants be restrained from publishing, selling or distributing the prospectus “Fashion”.
(10) Mr. Gurnani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants submitted that registration of the copy right of the plaintiffs work had been granted in violation of the principle of natural justice as the plaintiffs did not send a copy of the application filed with the Registrar of Copyright to the defendants so as to enable them to file the objections with the Registrar. In support of this contention he placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in the case of R.B.Shreeram Durga Prasad VS. Settlement Commission He further submitted that during the pendency of the present suit, the Registrar of Copyright had no jurisdiction to grant the registration of the copyright to the plaintiffs. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on a judgment of Patna High Court reported in the case of The King VS. Parmanand & Ors. Air 1949 Putna,222.
(11) Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that there is no copyright in a single word and “Fashion” being a single word, the plaintiffs could not claim any copyright in the word “Fashion”. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Xon Corporation VS. Xon insurance Consultants International Ltd., 1982 Rpc 69 (CA).
(12) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. From the agreement dated 15.6.1990 executed between the plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1, it is clear that defendant No. 1 had permitted the plaintiff No. 1 to run the various courses relating to fashion technology and on account of this, the plaintiff No. 1 was required to pay to defendant No. 1 25% of the net profits of IIFT, but the defendant No. 1 could not interefere in any manner with the internal affairs of the plaintiff No. 1 with regard to the tuition fee. It is also provided in the agreement that in case IIFT ceases to operate from the premises of defendant No. 1, the plaintiff No. 1 shall hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to defendant No. 1 and the goodwill will be calculated on the basis of profits of previous three completed years or less as the case may be. Thus the defendant No. 1 can only claim its share in the goodwill based on the profits of earlier period but cannot stake any claim on the name of IIFT or on the prospectus of IIFT titled “Fashion”.
(13) Besides, as stated hereinabove, the Registrar of copyright has granted the registration of the copyright of plaintiff work being the “Fashion” prospectus of IIFT on 16.4.1993. The contention of the learned counsel for the defendants that the said registration had been granted in violation of principle of natural justice, cannot be gone into at this stage. Further from the prospectus of defendant No. 1, I find that it has been written therein that the Institute of defendant No. 1 is affiliated to CFI-London whereas the letter dated 26.10.1992 addressed by the Director, CFI-London to defendant No.3 shows that the. Institute of defendant No. 1 is not affiliated to CFI-London. Infact it is the Institute of plaintiff No. 1 which is affiliated to CFI-London. It will be, therefore, in the interest of justice that the defendants are restrained as prayed for by the plaintiffs.
(14) For the above reasons, the applications are allowed and the defendants are restrained from publishing, selling or distributing the prospectus titled “Fashion” in any manner. The parties arc, however, left to bear their own costs.