Indian doctor sues German firm for copyright violation of book

Dr Mirza Anwar Baig has sought an order from the High Court seeking to restrain Germany-based M/s Narayana Verlag GMBH Publishers from selling the book through the internet under its own brand name.

The notice of motion moved by Dr Baig came up recently before Justice S C Dharmadhikari who issued notice to the defendants and posted the matter for hearing on November 16.
63-year-old Baig, who has authored the book titled "Homo-Immunisation" (Aids versus Cancer), pleaded that he found on the internet that this book was being sold by the defendants under its brand name thereby infringing on his copyright.

Baig's book deals with the treatment of Cancer and AIDS based on the theory that AIDS virus can cure cancer and vice versa.The plaintiff said that he was the lawful copyright holder in respect of the book and at no point of time had he given or assigned any right to the defendant to market or sell the book under its brand name.

Baig said he had published this book in India through Mafkar publications and it was widely circulated all over and purchased by many people.Baig contended that he had come across a website in which the defendants claimed to be the owner of the copyright in respect of the book. The website also mentioned that anyone could purchase the book from the defendants.

In support of his argument, Dr Baig produced a print-out of the website which claimed that the book was being offered for sale by German-based Naryana Verlag GMBH publication.

He contended that according to information gathered by him, the defendants had by this time sold several copies of this book to many people and pocketed a huge amount.
The defendants were selling the book in several countries for 700 Euro dollars, the plaintiff said.

The plaintiff said he was trying to figure out the losses suffered by him on account of copyright violation by illegal sale of his book and added that he reserved a right to file an appropriate suit to seek damages later.

Baig said that if the relief prayed by him was granted no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties but if it was refused then grave loss would be caused to him which could never be compensated in terms of money.

Comments (+)