A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Syndicate of the Press of the University of Cambridge v. B.D. Bhandari & Anr., RFA (OS) No. 21 of 2009 with FAO (OS) No. 458 of 2008, Delhi High Court, decided on 3 August 2011, is a leading Indian copyright judgment on educational guidebooks. The Division Bench examined whether grammar exercises and mathematical questions can receive copyright protection. It also considered whether a prescribed textbook enters the public domain merely because a university or school board adopts it. The Court rejected that broad proposition. It held that original literary work under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957 can include carefully structured exercises. It also held that Section 52(1)(h) of the Copyright Act, 1957 does not protect commercial publishers who reproduce questions and answers for profit. Yet the Court dismissed both appeals. It reasoned that a genuine guidebook may be a lawful derivative and transformative work. The guide must assist students through explanation, structure, commentary, or stepwise solutions. It must not merely replace the original textbook.
Keywords: Copyright, Fair dealing, Educational guidebooks, Public domain, Originality, Derivative work, Transformative use, Textbook infringement.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Syndicate of the Press of the University of Cambridge on behalf of the Chancellor, Masters and Scholars v. B.D. Bhandari & Anr. along with The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford v. Narendra Publishing House and Ors. The first appeal concerned Cambridge University Press and MBD guidebooks. The second concerned Oxford University Press and mathematics guidebooks published by Narendra Publishing House.

ii) Case Number: RFA (OS) No. 21 of 2009 and FAO (OS) No. 458 of 2008.

iii) Judgement Date: 3 August 2011.

iv) Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.

v) Quorum: Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Suresh Kait.

vi) Author: Justice A.K. Sikri.

vii) Citation: The judgment is reported online as Syndicate of the Press of the University of Cambridge v. B.D. Bhandari & Anr., decided on 3 August 2011, Delhi High Court.

viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 13, 14, 17, 21, 22, 51, 52(1)(a), and 52(1)(h) of the Copyright Act, 1957; Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Order XXXIX Rule 9, Order XXVI Rule 9, and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

ix) Judgments Overruled: No judgment was expressly overruled. The Court declined to accept broad readings of Mohamed Abdul Jalil v. Ram Dayal, AIR 1916 All 216 and Romesh Chowdhry v. Ali Mahomed Nowsheri, AIR 1965 J&K 101 on public domain.

x) Law Subjects: Intellectual Property Law, Copyright Law, Education Law, Civil Procedure, Commercial Law, and Comparative Copyright Jurisprudence.

xi) Counsel: For Cambridge, Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Senior Advocate, Ms. Jyoti Taneja, and Mr. Saurabh Kirpal appeared. For B.D. Bhandari, Mr. S.K. Dubey, Ms. Sangeeta Goel, Mr. Mohit Goel, and Mr. Sidhant Goel appeared. For Oxford, Mr. V.P. Singh, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Mr. Saurabh Sinha, and Mr. Harshit Agarwal appeared. For Narendra Publishing House, Ms. Prathiba M. Singh and Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee appeared.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The judgment arose from two connected educational copyright disputes. Both disputes involved respected university presses. Both involved guidebook publishers. Both required the Court to balance private copyright ownership against educational access. Cambridge University Press claimed copyright in “Advanced English Grammar by Martin Hewings”. That book was prescribed by Guru Nanak Dev University for undergraduate students. Cambridge alleged that the respondents’ MBD English Guide B.A./B.Sc./B.Com Parts I, II, and III reproduced grammar exercises and answer keys from its book. Oxford University Press raised a similar claim. It alleged that “Teach Yourself Mathematics Fully Solved Part A and Part B” copied questions from “Oxford Mathematics Part A” and “Oxford Mathematics Part B”. Those books followed the Jammu and Kashmir school curriculum. The central question was not whether education mattered. It plainly did. The real question was whether commercial educational guides could reproduce protected exercises. The Court therefore studied originality, public domain, fair dealing, derivative works, and market substitution. It also considered Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, AIR 2008 SC 809; (2008) 1 SCC 1, where the Supreme Court moved Indian copyright law beyond pure “sweat of the brow.”

The case is important because it refuses two extreme positions. It rejects the publisher’s rigid monopoly over every use of textbook questions. It also rejects the guidebook publisher’s claim that prescribed textbooks become free public property. The Court treated copyright as a structured legal balance. It accepted that grammar exercises can involve skill, judgment, labour, and creativity. It accepted that mathematical questions may also attract protection. Yet it treated a genuine guidebook as something more than copying. A guide may explain. It may review. It may reorganise. It may solve problems step by step. It may support students who need help. The Court’s approach echoes the classic idea-expression distinction recognised in R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, AIR 1978 SC 1613; (1978) 4 SCC 118. Copyright protects expression. It does not protect ideas, methods, themes, facts, or educational concepts. The Court applied that principle to classrooms, examinations, and publishing markets.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Cambridge University Press published “Advanced English Grammar by Martin Hewings.” The work contained 120 grammar units. Each unit used a pedagogic structure. The left page explained grammar concepts. The right page carried practice exercises. The answer key appeared later in the book. The Court noted that the book was not merely a list of sentences. Its structure was designed for advanced South Asian learners. It used examples, symbols, typical errors, exercises, and keys. Cambridge alleged that the respondents reproduced exercises and answer keys in three MBD guidebooks. The respondents did not seriously dispute Cambridge’s copyright in the publication. Their defence was narrower. They argued that their publications were guidebooks. They claimed that the books helped students understand the prescribed syllabus. They also argued that the university prescription placed the relevant questions in the public domain. They relied on Section 52(1)(h) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Single Judge dismissed Cambridge’s suit. He held that grammar exercises lacked sufficient originality. He also held that prescribed questions and answers fell within the examination-related exception. The Division Bench disagreed with much of that reasoning. Yet it ultimately dismissed Cambridge’s appeal because the guidebook was materially different and did not substitute the original textbook.

The Oxford appeal had a different procedural posture. Oxford had obtained an ex parte injunction against Narendra Publishing House. The Single Judge later vacated that injunction. Oxford appealed. Oxford claimed copyright in “Oxford Mathematics Part A” and “Oxford Mathematics Part B.” It argued that mathematical exercises were crucial to the textbook. It said exercises are often the operative heart of mathematics education. Narendra Publishing House argued that its guidebooks were fully solved materials. They did not copy theory portions. They provided working, method, and stepwise answers. The Single Judge held that Oxford had not shown sufficient creativity in the questions. He also accepted a fair use defence at the interim stage. The Division Bench partly disagreed. It held that mathematical exercises can be protected in principle. Yet Oxford faced a factual difficulty. The respondents demonstrated that several questions appeared to be taken from other standard textbooks. Therefore, at the interim stage, originality was uncertain. The Court also held that the guidebook offered explanations and stepwise solutions. It therefore affirmed vacation of the injunction.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

The first issue was whether grammar exercises and answer keys in “Advanced English Grammar by Martin Hewings” constituted original literary work under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Court answered this in Cambridge’s favour. It held that exercises can embody creativity. Their originality lies in selection, arrangement, framing, sequencing, and pedagogic design. The author had used judgment in preparing exercises suitable for specific grammar concepts. The Court relied on University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd., [1916] 2 Ch 601. That case held that originality concerns expression, not novelty of idea. The Court also relied on Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, AIR 2008 SC 809; (2008) 1 SCC 1. That case required a minimum degree of creativity. Cambridge’s exercises met that threshold. The second issue was whether university prescription placed the work in the public domain. The Court rejected this defence. It held that prescription by a university does not equal relinquishment under Section 21 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Copyright expires under Section 22 only after the statutory term. It does not vanish through academic adoption.

The third issue was whether Section 52(1)(h) of the Copyright Act, 1957 protected the respondents. The provision permits reproduction by a teacher or pupil in instruction, as examination questions, or in answers to such questions. The Court held that this clause did not protect commercial guidebook publishers. The respondents were not teachers. They were not pupils. They were not examination setters. Their publications were commercial products. The Court therefore rejected the Single Judge’s reasoning on this clause. The fourth issue was more delicate. It asked whether a guidebook may reproduce textbook questions without infringing copyright. The Court held that such use may be permissible where the guidebook is a genuinely derivative and transformative work. It must not merely supersede the textbook. It must add explanation, commentary, review, analysis, or stepwise solutions. This approach drew support from Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) and Hubbard v. Vosper, [1972] 2 Q.B. 84. Those decisions ask whether the new work adds a different purpose. They also examine quantity, purpose, and market effect.

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Cambridge submitted that “Advanced English Grammar by Martin Hewings” was an original literary work. They argued that its exercises were not casual sentences. They were carefully framed to teach specific grammar concepts. The author had invested years of academic skill, experience, and research. Cambridge argued that originality does not require novelty like patent law. It requires independent expression. The exercise design, answer key, sequence, unit structure, and pedagogic method were all expressive elements. The appellants relied on Educational Testing Service v. Katzman, 793 F.2d 533 (3d Cir. 1986), where test questions were treated as copyrightable. They also relied on V. Govindan v. E.M. Gopalkrishna Kone, AIR 1955 Mad 391 and University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd., [1916] 2 Ch 601. These authorities strengthened their claim that examination-style questions can be original literary works. Cambridge also invoked R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, AIR 1978 SC 1613; (1978) 4 SCC 118. It argued that the respondents copied protectable expression, not merely grammatical ideas.

The appellants further argued that prescription by a university does not destroy copyright. They submitted that the public domain argument confused access with ownership. A textbook may be available to students. It may also be prescribed in a syllabus. Yet it remains protected unless copyright expires, is assigned, or is relinquished. Cambridge stressed Section 21 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Relinquishment requires notice to the Registrar of Copyrights. No such notice existed. Cambridge also challenged reliance on Section 52(1)(h). It argued that the respondents were commercial publishers. They could not claim the privilege meant for teachers, pupils, and examinations. Oxford made similar submissions in the mathematics appeal. It argued that exercises are central to mathematics teaching. A solved guide that copies all questions exploits the textbook’s most valuable portion. Oxford contended that the respondents’ books were market substitutes. It said students may buy the guide instead of the textbook. Therefore, the use damaged the potential market for the original work.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondents submitted that guidebooks perform a different educational function. They argued that Cambridge’s book was a prescribed course book. Students required support materials to understand it. MBD’s guides included broader syllabus material. They were not limited to Cambridge’s grammar book. They contained prose, poetry, comprehension, essays, letters, translations, and examination-oriented assistance. The respondents argued that answers to grammar exercises could not materially differ. If a question has a correct answer, the guide must provide it. They also contended that the arrangement and format differed. Cambridge placed explanations and exercises across unit pages. The guide placed questions and answers together for examination assistance. The respondents also argued that their books were not passed off as Cambridge’s work. They were marketed as guides. They did not copy theoretical explanations. They used only those parts relevant to the university syllabus. They relied on the educational purpose of guidebooks. They also invoked fair dealing and public domain arguments.

Narendra Publishing House advanced similar arguments in the Oxford appeal. It said the mathematics guide was not a copy of the textbook. It did not reproduce theory portions. It solved problems step by step. It created a different work for students needing assistance. The respondents also challenged Oxford’s originality. They argued that many mathematical questions came from earlier textbooks by publishers such as R.D. Sharma, S. Chand, and Laxmi Publications. If Oxford had copied many questions from existing sources, it could not assert original authorship over them. The respondents also relied on the idea-expression dichotomy and merger doctrine. They argued that mathematical concepts, laws, and methods cannot be monopolised. Where limited forms of expression exist, copyright protection must be narrow. They relied on The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford v. Narendra Publishing House, 2008 (38) PTC 385 (Del), where the Single Judge had declined interim relief on similar reasoning.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957 protects original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works. It was the foundation of Cambridge’s and Oxford’s claims. The Court held that grammar exercises and mathematics questions may qualify as literary works if they contain sufficient creative expression. Section 14 defines the bundle of exclusive rights flowing from copyright. These include reproduction and publication rights. Section 17 concerns first ownership. It became relevant while discussing question papers and authored educational material. Section 21 permits relinquishment of copyright through notice to the Registrar. The Court used it to reject the public domain argument. Mere university adoption did not amount to statutory relinquishment. Section 22 fixes the term of copyright in literary works. The Court observed that copyright does not enter the public domain until expiry of the statutory term. Section 51 explains infringement. It gives legal meaning to unauthorised acts that invade copyright. These provisions collectively frame the rights-based side of the dispute.

Section 52(1)(h) of the Copyright Act, 1957 was central. It states that reproduction of a literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work is not infringement when done by a teacher or pupil in the course of instruction, as part of questions to be answered in an examination, or in answers to such questions. The Court held that this exception is limited. It does not give commercial publishers a general licence to reproduce textbook exercises. Section 52(1)(a) also mattered in the Oxford appeal because the Single Judge treated the solved guide as review or fair dealing. The Court did not adopt a mechanical approach. It considered purpose, transformation, proportion, and market substitution. Procedurally, Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 governed interim injunctions. Order XXXIX Rule 9 was invoked for vacation of injunction. Order XXVI Rule 9 and Section 151 CPC supported the appointment of a Local Commissioner in the Oxford dispute. These provisions show how copyright claims often depend on early procedural relief.

I) PRECEDENTS ANALYSED BY COURT IN THIS CASE

The Court relied heavily on Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, AIR 2008 SC 809; (2008) 1 SCC 1. The Supreme Court in that case rejected pure “sweat of the brow.” It required skill, judgment, labour, and a minimum degree of creativity. The Delhi High Court applied this test to grammar exercises and mathematics questions. It held that such exercises can be original. The Court also cited University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd., [1916] 2 Ch 601. That case held that examination papers could be original literary works. It clarified that copyright protects expression of thought, not originality of ideas. Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. William Hill (Football) Ltd., [1964] 1 All E.R. 465 was used to show that compilations may involve protectable selection, arrangement, and presentation. R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, AIR 1978 SC 1613; (1978) 4 SCC 118 supported the idea-expression dichotomy and infringement analysis.

The Court also considered older Indian cases on educational materials. Rupendra Kashyap v. Jiwan Publishing House, 1996 (38) DRJ 81 held that CBSE examination question papers could be copyrightable. Agarwala Publishing House v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, AIR 1967 All 91 recognised copyright in question papers unless assigned. Jagdish Prasad Gupta v. Parmeshwar Prasad Singh, AIR 1966 Pat 33 took a similar approach. The respondents relied on Mohamed Abdul Jalil v. Ram Dayal, AIR 1916 All 216 and Romesh Chowdhry v. Ali Mahomed Nowsheri, AIR 1965 J&K 101. Those cases suggested that syllabus material may become public in character. The Division Bench limited their use. It held that prescription may invite review, criticism, or guidance. It does not destroy copyright. On guidebooks, the Court referred to E.M. Forster v. Parasuram, AIR 1964 Mad 331 and V. Ramaiah v. K. Lakshmaiah, 1989 PTC 137 (AP). These cases helped the Court understand guides as commentaries or derivative educational works. It also considered Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985), Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, and Hubbard v. Vosper, [1972] 2 Q.B. 84 for fair use and transformation.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The Court’s first ratio is that grammar exercises and answer keys may be original literary works. The Court held that originality can exist in pedagogic design. It may lie in framing questions, arranging them with units, selecting grammatical contrasts, designing blanks, and preparing answer keys. The author need not invent grammar itself. He must create an original expression of grammar instruction. This reasoning follows Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, AIR 2008 SC 809; (2008) 1 SCC 1 and University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd., [1916] 2 Ch 601. The Court therefore disagreed with the Single Judge’s view that grammar exercises were too ordinary for copyright. The second ratio is that a prescribed textbook does not enter the public domain merely by prescription. The Court treated public domain as a legal status. It arises when copyright protection is unavailable, relinquished, or expired. University prescription is not relinquishment. Section 21 of the Copyright Act, 1957 requires notice to the Registrar. No such notice existed.

The third ratio is that Section 52(1)(h) of the Copyright Act, 1957 does not protect commercial guidebook publishers. That provision protects teachers, pupils, examination questions, and examination answers. It does not legalise reproduction by a commercial publisher merely because the work is educational. The fourth and decisive ratio is that a genuine guidebook may still be lawful. The guidebook must be materially different from the textbook. It must not copy theory portions wholesale. It must add explanation, commentary, stepwise reasoning, or a distinct instructional purpose. The MBD guide was not confined to Cambridge grammar. It covered wider syllabus material. It included prose, poetry, comprehension, essays, translations, and examination assistance. It used questions and answers within a larger guide structure. The Court therefore held that it did not infringe Cambridge’s copyright. In Oxford’s appeal, the Court held that mathematics questions can be protected in principle. Yet interim relief was refused because originality was doubtful on facts. Several questions appeared copied from prior sources. The guide also provided stepwise solutions. Both appeals were dismissed.

b. OBITER DICTA

The judgment contains important observations on the social role of guidebooks. The Court recognised that many academics may dislike them. It acknowledged that purists may find guidebooks distasteful. Yet it accepted that guides often help weaker students. This observation is not the narrow ratio. It is a broader educational comment. The Court suggested that copyright law should not become hostile to learning aids. It must prevent plagiarism. It must also allow supportive educational commentary. The Court also observed that once a textbook is prescribed, reviews, criticisms, and guides may naturally arise. This does not mean the textbook becomes public property. It only means educational engagement becomes foreseeable. Another important observation concerns derivative works. The Court indicated that textbook-based guides may themselves attract copyright if they show independent skill, judgment, and creativity. This applies especially where the guide supplies explanations, detailed analysis, or stepwise problem-solving. This obiter is relevant for future disputes involving coaching material, solved papers, companion manuals, and academic commentaries.

c. GUIDELINES

The Court effectively framed practical guidelines for educational guidebook disputes. First, courts must examine whether the original textbook material is copyrightable. Originality under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957 requires independent expression and minimum creativity. Second, courts must ask whether the copied portion is a protectable expression or only an idea, fact, formula, principle, method, or syllabus requirement. Third, prescription by a university or board does not place a work in the public domain. Fourth, Section 52(1)(h) must be applied narrowly. It protects teachers, pupils, examination setters, and examination answers. It does not automatically protect publishers. Fifth, a guidebook should not be judged by isolated similarities alone. The two works must be compared as a whole. Sixth, the guidebook must be materially different. It should not be a substitute for the textbook. Seventh, the guidebook may reproduce questions when needed to explain answers. Yet it must add explanation, commentary, reasoning, or review. Eighth, courts must assess whether the new work supersedes the market of the original. Ninth, commercial character is relevant. It is not always fatal. Tenth, where the claimant’s own originality is doubtful, interim injunction may be refused.

d. DISSENTING OPINION

There was no dissenting opinion. Justice A.K. Sikri authored the judgment for the Division Bench. Justice Suresh Kait concurred. The Bench spoke with one voice. The result was consistent across both appeals. Cambridge succeeded on originality, public domain, and the narrow reading of Section 52(1)(h). Yet it failed on infringement because the guidebook was treated as materially different and transformative. Oxford succeeded in principle on copyrightability of mathematical exercises. Yet it failed on interim relief because originality was factually uncertain and the guide offered stepwise solutions. The absence of dissent is meaningful. It shows that the Court was not divided between copyright protection and educational access. It constructed a middle path. That middle path protects authored educational expression. It also permits genuine learning aids. The decision therefore functions as a careful balance between publishers, students, teachers, and the public interest in education.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment is persuasive because it avoids formalism. It does not deny copyright merely because the subject is grammar or mathematics. Such denial would weaken educational publishing. Teachers and authors often express old ideas through new learning designs. Their value lies in arrangement, examples, difficulty progression, and explanatory architecture. The Court correctly protected that labour when accompanied by creativity. At the same time, the judgment prevents publishers from using copyright as a weapon against all educational commentary. A textbook prescribed in a syllabus becomes a centre of academic discussion. Students need explanations. Teachers need supporting material. Guidebooks may serve that need. The Court’s test therefore asks whether the guidebook substitutes the textbook or transforms it. This is a pragmatic test. It is also fair. It protects original expression without monopolising learning.

The ruling also clarifies public domain with useful precision. Public domain is not the same as public availability. A book may be widely sold. It may be prescribed. It may be discussed in classrooms. It may still remain protected. The Court’s reading of Sections 21 and 22 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is doctrinally sound. Relinquishment must be deliberate. Expiry must follow statute. This protects authors from accidental loss of rights. The Court’s narrow interpretation of Section 52(1)(h) is also sound. That provision is meant for instruction and examinations. It is not a blanket licence for commercial reproduction. Yet the judgment leaves some uncertainty. It does not provide a mathematical threshold for permissible copying. That is understandable. Fair dealing is fact-sensitive. Still, future courts must be cautious. A publisher should not escape liability merely by adding thin commentary around copied material.

The case remains highly relevant in 2026. Indian education has expanded through coaching centres, digital notes, solved papers, PDFs, online repositories, and AI-generated summaries. The judgment’s principles apply strongly to these contexts. A digital guide that merely reproduces textbook questions and answers may infringe copyright. A guide that explains, analyses, critiques, and teaches may be defensible. The distinction lies in transformation, purpose, and market effect. The judgment also aligns with India’s constitutional values. Article 27(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises protection of authors’ moral and material interests. Article 15(1)(c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights similarly protects creators. Yet Article 13 of the ICESCR protects education. The Delhi High Court’s approach reflects that international balance. It neither worships copyright nor dismisses it. It treats copyright as an instrument of culture, learning, and fairness.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

• Syndicate of the Press of the University of Cambridge v. B.D. Bhandari & Anr., RFA (OS) No. 21 of 2009 with FAO (OS) No. 458 of 2008, High Court of Delhi, decided on 3 August 2011.
• The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford v. Narendra Publishing House and Ors., 2008 (38) PTC 385 (Del).
• Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, AIR 2008 SC 809; (2008) 1 SCC 1.
• R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, AIR 1978 SC 1613; (1978) 4 SCC 118.
• University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd., [1916] 2 Ch 601.
• Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. William Hill (Football) Ltd., [1964] 1 All E.R. 465.
• Educational Testing Service v. Katzman, 793 F.2d 533 (3d Cir. 1986).
• V. Govindan v. E.M. Gopalkrishna Kone, AIR 1955 Mad 391.
• Rupendra Kashyap v. Jiwan Publishing House, 1996 (38) DRJ 81.
• Agarwala Publishing House v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, AIR 1967 All 91.
• Jagdish Prasad Gupta v. Parmeshwar Prasad Singh, AIR 1966 Pat 33.
• Mohamed Abdul Jalil v. Ram Dayal, AIR 1916 All 216.
• Romesh Chowdhry v. Ali Mahomed Nowsheri, AIR 1965 J&K 101.
• E.M. Forster v. Parasuram, AIR 1964 Mad 331.
• V. Ramaiah v. K. Lakshmaiah, 1989 PTC 137 (AP).
• Nag Book House v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1982 Cal 245.
• Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994).
• Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985).
• Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146.
• Hubbard v. Vosper, [1972] 2 Q.B. 84.

b. Important Statutes Referred

• Copyright Act, 1957, Section 13.
• Copyright Act, 1957, Section 14.
• Copyright Act, 1957, Section 17.
• Copyright Act, 1957, Section 21.
• Copyright Act, 1957, Section 22.
• Copyright Act, 1957, Section 51.
• Copyright Act, 1957, Section 52(1)(a).
• Copyright Act, 1957, Section 52(1)(h).
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2.
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXXIX Rule 9.
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXVI Rule 9.
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 151.
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 27.
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Articles 13 and 15.