No Rest -- England's A Fine Forum For Indian Copyright Royalty Spat

A logo reflecting happier days for the 2 litigants inwards this case

The Queen's Bench decision of Mrs Justice Gloster inwards Pearson Education Ltd v Prentice Hall of Republic of Republic of India Pte Ltd, 22 Apr 2005, [2005] EWHC 655 (QB), a head-on clash betwixt 2 publishers, has alone but come upwardly to the IPKat's attention.

This was an application past times Prentice Hall to develop aside an lodge giving Pearson permission to serve the proceedings on it inwards India, or to rest the proceedings on forum grounds. Prentice Hall published a number books inwards Republic of Republic of India nether licence, but Pearson said those licences -- which were governed past times English linguistic communication constabulary -- had been assigned to it inwards 1999. Pearson besides assumed the books were no longer inwards print, since Prentice Hall had stopped paying royalties. When Pearson found that Prentice Hall was indeed continuing to impress those titles, it served default notices nether the agreements for non-payment of royalties. Meanwhile, failure to remedy those breaches automatically terminated the licence agreements. Prentice Hall conceded it was inwards breach of the licence agreements but claimed that (i) Pearson had no championship to sue, (ii) Pearson could non institute that its claim had a reasonable prospect of success too (iii)India was the virtually appropriate forum for the determination of whatsoever dispute betwixt the parties.

Gloster J refused Prentice Hall's application too held every bit follows:

* It was seriously arguable, considering the provisions of the Copyright, Designs too Patents Act 1988 too its predecessor inwards 1956, that Pearson had a contractual human relationship alongside Prentice Hall fifty-fifty if it hadn't given written uncovering of the assignments at the it served default notices nether the licence agreements. This meant that Pearson was entitled, every bit legal proprietor of the titles, to serve such notices.

* England was clearly the to a greater extent than appropriate forum since the relevant agreements were governed past times English linguistic communication law: Pearson's entitlement to sue nether the agreements raised English linguistic communication constabulary issues too involved events too evidence mainly located inwards England.

* The being of Indian proceedings involving Prentice Hall (but non Pearson) too the fact that farther Indian proceedings were contemplated did non demonstrate that Republic of Republic of India was clearly a to a greater extent than appropriate forum for the action, nor that England was non the appropriate forum.

notes how reluctant the English linguistic communication courts currently are to grip that whatsoever other jurisdiction is to a greater extent than convenient or appropriate: does anyone hold statistics on this matter? Merpel adds that she's heard that Indian civil litigation is reputed to last really tedious -- but is this nonetheless the case, straight off that Republic of Republic of India has beefed upwardly its IP enforcement procedures inwards the wake of TRIPs? Do delight permit us know!

More forums here and here