This is true of most superhero comics because the traits of Superman are different from that of Spiderman and so and so forth. hypothetically speaking, if characters of a run-of-the-mill love story are to qualify for copyright protection, they must distinguish themselves significantly from most characters used in this genre or though belonging to an existing genre, the very features possessed by the character must distinguish the storyline. In Star Wars, the Court held that for characters to be bestowed with copyright protection, they are expected to bring an element of distinctiveness through their traits i.e. Let’s analyse this in the light of the observations made by the US Court in the Star Wars case. Does the character of the defendant “Nagesh” infringe the plaintiff’s copyright in “Nagraj”, if at all there exists one? He too dresses in a green coloured body stocking. This character too uses his powers against crime on the advice of a sage. Nagesh is created when a herpetologist brings a dead person back to life using errr…a snake pearl. The defendant’s title character “Nagesh” too is depicted in almost the same fashion with a slight alteration in the storyline. The title character, in the comics is brought to life by a herpetologist (ahem…Snake expert), has Voldemort-esque powers in that he has power over snakes which are released from his body (I request the readers to bear with these pedantic details it’s a children’s comics after all) and at the behest of a noble hermit, he decides to put his powers to good use. The whole series, according to the plaintiff, revolved around the exploits of this character which entitled the plaintiff to copyright in the series as well as the character, its get up and appearance.

The plaintiff submitted to the Court that in its eponymous comic series, “Nagraj” was the central character and was dressed in green which was an allusion to his serpentine skin and wore a belt which was designed like a snake. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant’s release of its (defendant’s) comic series called “Nagesh” amounted to misrepresentation because the character closely resembled the plaintiff’s i.e.

The plaintiff in this case sought temporary injunction against the defendant to prevent circulation of any kind of promotional material in any manner under the name “Nagesh”, which, according to the plaintiff, infringed its copyright in its character “Nagraj”. Radha Pocket Books (Defendant) which dealt with copyright protection for characters.

I thank Ms.Swathi Sukumar for directing me to the judgment delivered in 1996 by the Delhi High Court in Raja Pocket Books (Plaintiff) v. In the last two posts, 2 US decisions on copyright protection to characters were discussed and having deliberated to a certain extent on the topic, it would be of much more use to look at the Indian position.

Nagraj comics list