002-SLLR-SLLR-2008-V-1-SOMASEKARAM-v.-LANKA-BELL-PVT-LTD.pdf
Somasekaram v Lanka Bell (Pvt) Ltd.
SC9_
SOMASEKARAM
v
LANKA BELL (PVT.) LTD.
SUPREME COURTNIHAL JAYASINGHE, J.
NIMAL DISSANAYAKE, J.
GAMINI AMARATUNGA, J.
SC (CHC) 16/2000HC CIVIL 28/97 (3)
MAY 17, 21, 2007AUGUST 5, 2007
Code of Intellectual Property Act 52 of 1979 – Permission granted by SurveyorGeneral to produce A-Z Street Guide Map – Copyright acquired? Ownershipof the copyright with the Surveyor General?
The appellant made an application to the Surveyor General for permission toproduce a A-Z street guide map for selected cities/Greater Colombo.
The defendant-respondent caused to be published in several newspapers areproduction of several parts of the map in the form of advertisement withoutthe consent/permission of the appellant.
10Sri Lanka Law Reports(2008] 1 Sri L.R
Action was instituted by the appellant, alleging that the respondent hasviolated his rights under Act 52 of 1979, and contended that the appellant hadmade several modifications and alterations to the map of the Surveyor Generalthat conferred originally to his work.
The High Court dismissed the application holding that the work is a merealteration of the Surveyor General's Plan without any creativity that defiesoriginality.
On appeal to the Supreme Court.
Held:
The ownership of the copyright in the map remained with the SurveyorGeneral.
APPEAL from the judgment of the Commercial High Court.
M.A. Sumanthiran with A. Vamadeva for plaintiff-appellant.
Romesh de Silva PC with Dina Phillips for defendant-respondent.
Cur-adv-vult.
February 26, 2008
JAYASINGHE, J.
In or around 1993 the appellant made an application to the 01Surveyor General for permission to produce an A-Z street guidemap of Greater Colombo and selected cities. The grant ofpermission was conditional upon payment of Royalties to theSurveyor General as per guidelines set out in a GazetteNotification. In or about 1994 the appellant produced an A-Z streetguide map for which approval has been obtained. The appellantsubmitted that in view of the unique and distinct features in the saidwork, the said A-Z guide map is an original creation and acquiredcopyright; that in or about December 1996 and January 1997 the 10defendant-respondent caused to be published in severalnewspapers a reproduction of several parts of the said A-Z map inthe form of an advertisement without the consent or permission ofthe appellant. The respondent then sought to settle the dispute thatensued and upon the failure to reach any compromise theappellant dispatched a letter of demand claiming damages for theunauthorized publication of the appellant's work and consequentlyinstituted proceedings in the Commercial High Court alleging thatthe respondent company has violated his rights under the Code ofIntellectual Property Act No. 52 of 1979. The main thrust of the 20
Somasekaram v Lanka Bell (Pvt) Ltd.
SC(Javasinghe, J.)H_
appellant's argument is that the appellant had made severalmodifications and alterations to the map of the Surveyor Generalthat conferred originality to his work and therefore is protectedunder the Code of Intellectual Property Act No. 52 of 1979 whereall rights were reserved for the appellant.
The Commercial High Court came to a finding that the keyissue for determination is whether the A-Z street guide mappublished by the appellant is an original work and held that thework of the appellant is a mere alteration of the Surveyor General'sPlan without any creativity that defies originality. The Commercial 30High Court accordingly dismissed the application of the appellant.
The present appeal is against the judgment of the CommercialHigh Court. It is the submission of the defendant-respondent thatthe Surveyor General's map which the petitioner admittedly usedas the ground work for the creation of the impugned map wasprepared by the Surveyor General’s Department and the copyrightis vested with the Surveyor General; that the appellant waspermitted to use the map in his publication subject to the conditionthat limited number of copies would be published, that Royaltieswere payable and more importantly the insertion of an40
acknowledgement that the map is reproduced with permission ofthe Surveyor General and accordingly the ownership of thecopyright in the map at all times remained with the SurveyorGeneral. The defendant-respondent submitted that in thecircumstances the appellant could not have had copyright in thesaid map.
I considered the submissions of Counsel carefully and I am ofthe view that there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal isaccordingly dismissed but without costs.
N.E. DISSANAYAKE, J.- I agree.
N.G. AMARATUNGA, J.- I agree.
Appeal dismissed.