Judgment :- 1. This is an application for interim injunction. 2. The applicant in his affidavit contends as follows:— The applicant is the story writer and he has written several stories and his work in the Cine field is assisting the Directors in teaching and explaining the dialogues to the actors. With a view to make a film, the applicant wrote a script of Literary work under the caption “Magalir Mattum” and the same has been registered before the Registrar of Copy Right on 9.7.1991. The entire rights pertaining to the literary work “Magalir Mattum” stands reserved in the name of the applicant and he has made arrangements for taking a film in the said name. The applicant came to know from a publication dated 25.6.1993 in “Daily Thanthi” about the production of a film by name “Magalir Mattum”. The title “Magalir Mattum” is very popular among cine field workers and the respondent with an ulterior motive to take advantage and profit out of the labour, skill and intelligence of the applicant has produced the film “Magalir Mattum”. But he has no right for the same. The production of the said picture by the respondent is an infringement of the copy right of the literary work of the applicant. Hence the application for a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from releasing the said picture. In the supplementary affidavit the applicant has stated that the title has been registered in the South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce in the name of “Workers Cine Arts” and hence the injunction should be granted. 3. The respondent in his counter has stated that there is no provision to register a title and there can be no copyright over a title. According to the respondent he was not aware of the literary work claimed by the applicant under the title “Magalir Mattum”, which still remains unpublished. He has also stated that there is no intention to cause any loss to any one and the application may be dismissed. In the additional counter filed by him, the respondent has stated that the South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce have clarified by a letter dated 2.12.1993 that the registration of the said title by Workers Cine Arts with the said Chamber expired on 18.9.1991 and that the registration has not been renewed subsequently. The title “Magalir Mattum” stands registered in favour of Rajkamal Films International. The title “Magalir Mattum” stands registered in favour of Rajkamal Films International. The application is therefore liable to be dismissed. 4. The point for consideration is whether the applicant is entitled to the interim injunction as prayed for. 5. THE POINT:— According to the applicant, he has registered the title “Magalir Mattum” with the Registrar of Copyrights and therefore the respondent cannot produce the film under the same title. It is also the case of the applicant that workers Cine Arts have registered the title “Magalir Mattum” with the South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce on his behalf and on their behalf also, the respondent is not entitled to produce the said film under the said title. According to the applicant under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, Copyright means the exclusive right, by virtue of, and subject to the provisions of the said Act, in the case of a literary work, to do and authorise the doing of any of the acts mentioned thereunder, including the making of any cinematograph film or a record in respect of the work and therefore production of cinematograph film under the caption “Magalir Mattum” by the respondent is an infringement of his copyright and therefore injunction should be granted restraining the respondent from releasing the picture with the said title. It is to be noted that the applicant has not made any allegation that the respondent has taken the story said to have been written by him under the caption “Magalir Mattum”. A literary work is one in which the work should have been originated from the author by his own invention or innovation, Since the plaintiff has not alleged that the respondent has taken the story written by him but only produced the film under the title “Magalir Mattum” we have to see whether there is any infringement of copyright as claimed by the applicant. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would argue that there cannot be any copyright for the title alone. The meaning of the word “copyright” having been stated as a literary work, it cannot be stated that there is a copyright for the title, which is a common word. The Tamil words “Magalir Mattum” only denotes women only and it cannot be stated that these two words are the invention of the applicant. The meaning of the word “copyright” having been stated as a literary work, it cannot be stated that there is a copyright for the title, which is a common word. The Tamil words “Magalir Mattum” only denotes women only and it cannot be stated that these two words are the invention of the applicant. These are two common words and the combination of them only gives the meaning women only. It is a very common sight to see boards as “Magalir Mattum” in many places where people gather. For example even in buses seats are allotted with the inscription “Magalir” or “Magalir Mattum” thereby indicating that those seats are reserved for women or women only. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the combination of these two words is an invention of the applicant to claim copyright for the same. In that view, the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that there cannot be a copyright for the title alone is convincing and acceptable. 6. Admittedly by the applicant, the story said to have been written by him under the name of “Magalir Mattum” has not been published so far. His intention is said to be a production of film under the said name, but the applicant admits that production of the said film has not been commenced. In the absence of the publication of the alleged literary work of the applicant, the applicant is not entitled to claim that he has got a copyright over the words “Magalir Mattum”. As per Section 22 of the Copyright Act, a copyright shall subsist in any literary work published during the lifetime of the author. Therefore, when the literary work has not been published there cannot be any copyright as per Section 22 of the Act. As per Section 13(2) of the Act, Copyright shall not subsist in any work of literary nature in the case of a published work, the work is first published in India, the author was a citizen of India. In the absence of any publication of the literary work it cannot be stated that there is any lite rary work done by the applicant, for which he can claim copyright. Therefore, registration of the words “Magalir Mattum” before the Registrar of Copyrights cannot enure to the benefit of the applicant to hold that he has got a copyright over the title “Magalir Mattum”. Therefore, registration of the words “Magalir Mattum” before the Registrar of Copyrights cannot enure to the benefit of the applicant to hold that he has got a copyright over the title “Magalir Mattum”. According to the applicant, the Cine Workers have registered the title “Magalir Mattum” with the South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce on his behalf and on their behalf also, and therefore he is entitled for injunction. This contention of the applicant cannot hold water, since there is no evidence on behalf of the applicant that Workers Cine Arts have got any connection with the applicant. The copy of the letter issued by the South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce to the respondent would show that the title “Magalir Mattum” was registered in favour of the Workers Cine Arts on 19.9.1990 and the validity of the same has expired on 18.9.1991 and they have not renewed the registration for the title and they have not even been members of the Chamber, when this letter was sent on 2.12.1993. Therefore when the persons, who have registered the title “Magalir Mattum” in their name with the South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce have chosen not to renew the same and they have also ceased to be members of the Film Chamber of Commerce, it cannot be stated by the applicant that the said registration was done on his behalf and it is still subsisting and that the respondent cannot register the film in the same name in his name. The letter by the South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce to Rajkamal Film International, would disclose that the title “Magalir Mattum” has been registered in favour of the addressee, namely, Rajkamal Films International for one year from 21.4.1993. Therefore, it is not open to the applicant to contend that they have got a copyright over the title “Magalir Mattum”. 7. When the applicant is not able to establish a prima facie case to get the relief of interim injunction, it is seen that the balance of convenience is also not in his favour, since he has not started production of the said film or published the literary work said to have been done by him. 7. When the applicant is not able to establish a prima facie case to get the relief of interim injunction, it is seen that the balance of convenience is also not in his favour, since he has not started production of the said film or published the literary work said to have been done by him. On the other hand, the respondent claims to have started production of the film and spent huge amounts in the production of the same and any injunction granted in favour of the applicant would only cause irreparable loss and injury to the respondent. Therefore, the balance of convenience is also in favour of the respondent only. The plaintiff, who has come forward with a request for an equitable relief of interim injunction has thus failed to establish a prima facie case and the balance of convenience. It goes without saying that the loss that may be caused to the applicant will be far less by not granting injunction when compared to the loss that may be sustained by the respondent if injunction is granted. Therefore, I am of opinion that the applicant is not entitled to the equitable relief of injunction. 8. In the result, the application is dismissed.