India is embroiled for the last few decades in a controversy in matters of IP protection on different forms and techniques of yoga by different persons from all over the world. One new addition to the same class of cases was made last month in the form of ‘Institute for Inner Studies & Ors vs Charlotte Anderson & Ors’.
The plaintiffs here are claiming that their peer, Master Choa Kok Sui, is the founder of all these techniques which include a series of asanas in a particular manner which ought to heal your body and, hence is named ‘Pranic Healings’. The plaintiffs in order to strengthen their position refer to another case wherein they won the legal position as the Principal Munsif, Ernakulam concluded that the plaintiffs in this case were the supreme authority to conduct courses to teach Pranic Healing and, thus, the plaintiffs claim the intellectual property rights in the Pranic Healing Techniques/ Modern Pranic Healing Techniques.
This case deals with a matter wherein the plaintiffs have filed the present suit in quest of pronouncement of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction beside the damages in opposition to the defendants’ act of carrying out actions of spreading Pranic Healing teachings, techniques, practices and courses, or any other techniques without their authority.
There were three main contentions which were brought before J Manmohan Singh, i.e., firstly the act of the defendants of conducting seminars and workshops and using the plaintiffs’ reading material amounting to an infringement of the copyright in literary works under the Copyright Act, 1957. The second and the third contentions of the plaintiffs were directed towards seeking protection over the yoga postures and asanas claiming it to be a piece of choreography work that deserves protection as it qualified to be a ‘dramatic expression’. lastly, they also demanded trademark protection over the term ‘Pranic Healings’ on account of it having achieved a secondary meaning in the common parlance.
On the other hand, the defendant’s case rests on the point which states that the history of yoga, when traced down, goes way back to around 1906. The court also consented to the contention of the defendants and, hence, in its judgment the court stated that “Applying the said proposition to the instant case, it can be seen that the expression Pranic Healing on the date of the application for the registration was prima facie no-distinctive and was the name of the art or technique of doing exercise which was a facet of yoga. The expression was not capable of distinguishing the services of the plaintiffs from others due to its widespread use in the field dating back from centuries ago….. Prima facie, it appears to the court that it becomes generic name and cannot be protected being known as name of concept of yoga at present. Even the Master was not the proprietor of the said expression ‘Pranic Healing’; hence, at this stage; the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim the monopoly of the said words.”
Regarding the copyright protection, claiming it to be an injunction by the act of defendants against the piece of literary work (books, CDs, etc), the defendants were not held liable for any sort of infringement because the plaintiffs’ work was held to be a mere compilation of different techniques. Basing its decision on the rule of law stated in Bikram’s Yoga College v Evolution Yoga, a US district court case held recently stated that, “There is a distinction between a creative work that compiles a series of exercises and the compilation of exercises itself. The former is copyrightable, the latter is not.”
Copyright Act does not support novelty; rather it supports originality. Holding the work of Master to be a mere piece of compilation, it was denied copyright protection under the category of literary work. Since the plaintiffs failed to establish any case of infringement, no injunction was passed against the defendants. Only relief sought on behalf of the plaintiffs was in the form of temporary injunction granted against the defendants in regard to the reproduction rights of the copies of the books of literature of the Master.
This case brought out a new vision of clarity regarding cases wherein mere compilations were sought protection claiming it to be a whole new work under the IP laws. The court distinguished between novel inventions and original inventions. Novel inventions include compilations, i.e., new work out of the old one which is novel and did not exist earlier whereas original work deals with original thoughts and expressions. The court in this regard stated, “The originality which is required relates to the expression of thoughts. But the Act doesn’t require that the expression must be in the original or novel form but that the work must not be copied from another’s work that it should originate from the author.” This case has narrowed down the meaning of the word ‘original’ and tried to describe it more appropriately.
(The writers are Members, legislative Research & Policy Club, National law University Odisha, Cuttack)
