P. N. Nag ( 1 ) THE Appeal is directed against the order dated 30. 8. 1993passed by learned single Judge whereby he has declined to entertain the suit forinfringement of copyright in the brochure for ELBEE machines of the plaintiff. ( 2 ) THE facts set out in the suit in substance are that the Managing Director ofthe plaintiff, Shri Harbhajan Singh Lamba, and the Managing Director of thedefendant,. Shri Rajinder Singh Lamba, are the real brothers and both of themstarted a partnership firm known as Lamba Brothers in the year 1960 for themanufacture of Power Presses (Machines), Notching presses, shearing machinesand bending machines under the trade mark ELBEE. The said partnership wasdissolved on 1. 4. 1985 vide Deed of Dissolution dated 20. 10. 1985. Afterdissolutionof the partnership, Shri Harbhajan Singh Lamba started his own business ofmanufacturing and merchandise of the aforesaid machines by inviting his son ashis partner in the business. Both the brothers are in litigation with respect of thetrade mark ELBEE which is separately being pursued by them. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff, to promote its business, introduced catalogues which consistof technical data, pictures and technical specifications tables (along with its sistemconcerns ). The plaintiff published one such Catalogue for its "c" and "h" Frame srange of Presses in the year 1990 and one Shri S. K. Bassi was commissioned tocreate and design the same. The arrangement and layout, the words, pictures andspecifications tables in the said catalogues were created and designed by Shri Bassiin July, 1990 for and on behalf of the plaintiff. Shri Bassi created the lilerary andartistic work contained in the catalogues for the plaintiff who is now the owner ofthe catalogues. These catalogues are entitled "from the House of Lamba" and "c"and "h" Frame s Range of Presses. The second page thereof consists of theinformative data and each paragraph begins with a word printed in bold, theprimary purpose being, to give the customer an idea of what the paragraph speaksabout. Throughout the catalogues one can see technical data along with eitherpictures or drawings in support which were carefully created and in this processsubstantial skill and labour were employed in designing these catalogues by theplaintiff. The plaintiff has also spent a substantial amount in creation of suchcatalogues. These catalogues have been in continuous and extensive use by theplaintiff till now. Throughout the catalogues one can see technical data along with eitherpictures or drawings in support which were carefully created and in this processsubstantial skill and labour were employed in designing these catalogues by theplaintiff. The plaintiff has also spent a substantial amount in creation of suchcatalogues. These catalogues have been in continuous and extensive use by theplaintiff till now. However, in the month of June, 1993, the plaintiff learnt that thedefendant had started copying its aforesaid catalogues. After obtaining one suchcatalogue of the defendant, the plaintiff was shocked to note that the defendant hadcopied the plaintiff s informative data word to word. The defendant had evencopied the manner in which the plaintiff had used the aforementioned bold wordsat the beginning of each paragraph. In substance, according to the plaintiff, theplaintiff has a copyright in the catalogues which is literary and artistic work andthat the same has been infringed by the defendant and therefore, the plaintiff hasbeen constrained to file the suit. ( 4 ) WHEN the matter came up for admission before Court on 30. 8. 1993, afterhearing the Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, the learned Single Judge declined toentertain the suit for infringement of copyright in the brochure for ELBEEmachines of the plaintiff merely on the ground that it was essential that forcopyright to exist, there must be compliance with the requirements of the statuteand claim to copyright made upon the copyrightable matter before any action incopyright could be sustained, and perfected by statutory remedies. In this case noreservation claim of copyright in the catalogue/brochure in recognised method hasbeen claimed, e. g. , mark C, or the expression copyright reserved or copyright:lamba Brothers (P) Ltd. There is no such reservation; and secondly under Section18 (14) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the name and address of theproprietor of the copyright or of any portion of such copyright has to be entered,which has not been entered in the present case. ( 5 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. He submits that thereis no provision in the Act which provides for the reservation claim of copyright inthe catalogue/brochure in any reccognised method as referred to by the learnedsingle Judge. ( 5 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. He submits that thereis no provision in the Act which provides for the reservation claim of copyright inthe catalogue/brochure in any reccognised method as referred to by the learnedsingle Judge. However, in the plaint, the appellant-plaintiff has clearly stated thatthey have such a copyright and that copyright has been infringed and under theprovisions of the Copyright Act it falls within the meaning of copyright since it isliterary and artistic work. Furthermore, the name and the owner of the copyrightand address are also shown on the catalogues. Learned Counsel further submitsthat Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 is not applicable in the present casein the first instance and even if it is assumed so then there is sufficient complianceof Section 18 (14) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, i. e. , the name andaddress of the proprietor of the copyright is mentioned in the catalogues of theappellant. ( 6 ) WE have considered the matter and there seems to be a good deal of forcein the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant. We are unable to find in thecopyright Act any provision which provides for the reservation of claim ofcopyright in the catalogues in any of the recognised method, like mark C etc. as heldby the learned Single Judge. However, there is specific averment in the plaint thatthe appellant-plaintiff is the owner of this literary and artistic work of the catalogues and it was created and designed by them in 1990 and the respondent-defendant has copied this catalogues in 1993. In the face of this allegation made inthe plaint, it would not be appropriate to decline to entertain the suit at this stagewhen the parties are still to go on trial and the matter is yet to be decided. The suitwas at the admission stage and even summons had not been issued to therespondent-defendant. Furthermore, without expressing any opinion whether ornot Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 is applicable in the present case, it issufficient to say that the catalogues refer to the ownership of the appellant-plaintiffand address has also been given thereon, i. e, Lamba Brothers Pvt. Ltd. , 6/12, Kirtinagar Industrial Area, New Delhi. There is sufficient compliance of Section 18 (14)of the Press Registration Act. There is sufficient compliance of Section 18 (14)of the Press Registration Act. ( 7 ) FURTHERMORE, the learned Single Judge has relied upon the Universalcopyright Convention revised at Paris in 1971, Article III, and according to thelearned Judge, Article III requires the plaintiff to claim copyright mentioning thename of the author; year of publication; symbol (C); accompanied by name of theauthor or there should be any other reasonable notice for claim of copyright. Onthe other hand, learned Counsel for the appellant relies upon Article 5 (2) of theberne Convention which provides that enjoyment and the exercise of thesecopyrights shall not be subject to any formality. In our opinion, it is not necessaryto decide this question at this stage as in the suit the plaintiff has alleged that thecopyright subsists in its favour and there is infringement by the defendant of suchcopyright and it has right to maintain the suit. There is no bar to the maintainabilityof the suit under any existing law and, therefore, in our opinion, the learned Judgehas erroneously declined to entertain the present suit. ( 8 ) IN the light of what is discussed above, the appeal is allowed, the impugnedjudgment dated 30. 8. 1993 of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the suit isrestored to its original number. The learned Single Judge will hear and try the suitin accordance with law.