See Cumberland v. Copeland (7 H. & N. 118; 31 L. J. 19, Ex.; 4 L. T. N. S. 803); Reade v. Conquest (9 C. B. N. S. 755; 30 L. J. 299, C. P.); Shepherd v. Conquest (17 C. B. 427; 25 L. J. 127, C. P.) As the sole right of representing or performing may be enjoyed separately from the copyright in the dramatic or musical composition itself (vide ante, pp. 114, 116), it may sometimes be necessary to frame a count for the infringement of such separate right. The following is given as a precedent : That before and at, &c. [as in preceding form], the plaintiff had and from thence hitherto has had and has the sole liberty of representing or causing to be represented a certain dramatic piece called at any place, &c., yet the defendant whilst the plaintiff had such sole liberty as aforesaid and after, &c. [as in preceding]. For Infringement of Right of Performing a Musical Composition. That before and at the time of the committing of the grievances hereinafter mentioned, and after the passing of certain Acts of Parliament made and passed in the third and fourth years of the reign of his late Majesty King William the Fourth, and in the fifth and sixth years of the reign of Queen Victoria, entitled respectively "An Act to Amend the Laws relating to Dramatic Literary Property," and " An Act to amend the Law of Copyright," the plaintiff was the proprietor of a certain musical composition called and had as such proprietor the sole liberty of performing [or representing and performing] or causing to be performed the said musical composition at any place [&c., as in preceding form; describing the work as a musical composition, and changing Act of Parliament to Acts of Parliament, and statute to statutes]. See the preceding note and form. For Infringement of Copyright in a Model, Cast, Copy, or Sculpture, by selling pirated Copies. That before and at the time of the committing by the defendant of the grievances hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff was, and from thence hitherto has been and still is, the proprietor of a certain new and original model [or cast, &c.], to wit, a model [or cast, &c.] of [describe the model, &c.], and such new and original model was first published by the plaintiff within fourteen [or twenty-eight, see 54 Geo. 3, c. 56, s. 6] years before the committing of the said grievances or any of them; and the plaintiff, before the said model, &c., was put forth or published, did cause his name to be put thereon, with the date of publication thereof, and was, at the time of the committing of the said grievances, and from thence hitherto has been and is entitled under the Act of Parliament in that behalf to the sole right and property in the said model; yet the defendant, well knowing the premises, but contriving, and wrongfully and fraudulently intending to injure the plaintiff, and to deprive him of the profits and advantages which he might and otherwise would have derived from the said model, &c., and also to deprive him of his copyright therein heretofore, and after the passing of an Act of Parliament passed in the fifty-fourth year of his late Majesty King George the Third, entitled "An Act to amend and render more effectual an Act of his present Majesty, for encouraging the Art of making new Models and Casts of Busts, and other things therein mentioned, and for giving further Encouragement to such Arts," and within six calendar months next before the commencement of this suit, and within fourteen [or twenty-eight] years from the said first publishing of the said model, &c., wrongfully and injuriously did, on divers days and times before the commencement of this suit, expose to sale and dispose of, and cause to be exposed to sale and disposed of, divers pirated copies [or pirated casts] of the aforesaid model, &c., contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, whereby the plaintiff was and is greatly damnified. For Infringement of Copyright in a Design registered under 5&6 Vict. c. 100. That before and at the time of the committing by the defendant of the grievances hereinafter mentioned, and after the passing of an Act of Parliament passed in the fifth and sixth years of the reign of Queen Victoria, intituled "An Act to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to the Copyright of Designs for ornamenting Articles of Manufacture," the plaintiff was, and from thence hitherto has been and is, the proprietor of a new and original design applicable to the ornamenting of comprised in class mentioned in the said Act, which said design had not before or at the time of the registration thereof, as hereinafter mentioned, been published within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or elsewhere, and the plaintiff, so being such proprietor as aforesaid, caused the said design to be and the same was duly registered in respect of the application of such design to ornamenting articles of manufacture, that is to say, to comprised in class mentioned in the said Act, by specifying the number of the class in respect of which such registration was made, and also caused his name to be, and his name was then duly registered according to the said Act as proprietor of the said design, and after and ever since the publication of the said design, every article of manufacture which had been made by the plaintiff according to the said design, and every article of manufacture and substance on or to which the said design had been used or applied by the plaintiff, had thereon the letters "Rd.," and also numbers and letters in a form corresponding with the date of the registration of the said design, and according to the provisions of the said Act, and, by reason of the premises, the plaintiff, before and at the time of the committing of the said grievances, and from thence hitherto, has had and has the sole right to apply the said desigų to any article of manufacture, or to any substance artificial or natural, or partly artificial and partly natural, and all conditions, matters, and things had been performed, and had happened and existed which were necessary to entitle the plaintiff to, and the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of the said Act with regard to the said design in respect of the application thereof to ornamenting comprised in class A.D. within the United Kingdom, for the term of [insert duration of copyright according to class] to be computed from the day of the date on which the said design was registered according to the provisions of the said Act, and all conditions, matters and things had been performed, and had happened and existed which were necessary to entitle the plaintiff to sue the defendant in this action, yet the defendant [on each of divers several occasions] wrongfully and injuriously, and without the leave or consent in writing of the plaintiff as such registered proprietor as aforesaid, and within twelve calendar months next before the commencement of this suit, applied the said design [and divers fraudulent imitations thereof] for the purpose of sale to and to the ornamenting of each of divers then being articles of manufacture comprised in class which the plaintiff had such sole right of applying the said design, and also made and caused to be made divers of such to according to the said design, in breach of and against the sole right of the plaintiff, and contrary to the form of the said statute. McCrae v. Holdsworth (5 B. & S. 495; 13 L. T., N.S., 80; 33 L. J. 329, Q.B.) For Infringement of Copyright in a Design registered under tion of a 6 & 7 Vict. c. 65. That before and at the time of the committing by the defendant of the grievances hereinafter mentioned, and after the passing of an Act of Parliament, passed in the seventh year of the reign of Queen Victoria, intituled, "An Act to amend the Laws relating to the Copyright of Designs," the plaintiff was, and from thence hitherto has been and is, the proprietor of a new and original design for an article of manufacture, having reference to a purpose of utility so far as the said design was and is for the shape or configuration of such article, that is to say, of a new and original design for the shape or configurawhich said design had not before or at the time of the registration thereof, as hereinafter mentioned, been published within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or elsewhere, and the plaintiff so being such proprietor as aforesaid, caused the said design to be and the same was duly registered according to the said Act, and also caused his name to be and his name was then duly registered according to the said Act as proprietor of the said design, and after and ever since the publication of the said design every article of manufacture made by the plaintiff according to the said design, or on which the said design was used, had thereon the word "registered," with the date of registration, and by reason of the premises the plaintiff had before and at the time of the committing of the said grievances, and from thence hitherto has had and has the sole right to apply the said design to any article of manufacture, or to make or sell any article according to such design, and all conditions, matters, and things had been performed and had happened and existed which were necessary to entitle the plaintiff to, and the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of the said Act with regard to the said design for the term of three years, to be computed from the day of the date on which the said design was registered according to the provisions of the said Act, and all conditions, matters, and things had been performed and had happened and existed which were necessary to entitle the plaintiff to sue the defendant in this action, yet the defendant [on each of several occasions] wrongfully and injuriously, and without the leave or consent in writing of the plaintiff as such registered proprietor as aforesaid, and within twelve calendar months next before the commencement of this suit, applied the said design [and divers fraudulent imitations thereof] for the purpose of sale to divers articles of manufacture to which the plaintiff had such sole right of applying the said design, and also made and caused to be made divers of such articles according to the said design, in breach of and against the sole right of the plaintiff and contrary to the form of the said Act. A.D. PLEAS. General Issue. B. In the Queen's Bench [or Common Pleas, or Exchequer of Pleas]. ats. A. The day of A.D. The defendant by C. D. his attorney [or in person, as the case may be] says that he is not guilty. Plea denying the Copyright. That the plaintiff was not the proprietor of the said copyright as alleged. Plea denying that the Copyright was existing. That the said copyright was not a subsisting copyright as alleged. Plea denying first Publication in England. That the said book in the declaration mentioned was not first printed and published in that part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland called England. That Prints had not Date of first Publication or Proprietor's Name thereon. That the day of the first publishing of the said print was not, together with the name of the plaintiff as proprietor thereof, printed upon such print as in the declaration mentioned. See Graves v. Ashford (16 L. T. N. S. 98; L. Rep. 2 C. P. 412). That Prints were published without Date of first Publication or That before the committing of the alleged grievances in the declaration mentioned [or any of them] the plaintiff printed and published and sold, and caused and knowingly permitted to be printed and published and sold divers, to wit prints printed and taken from the said engraving in the declaration mentioned, without having the day of the first publishing thereof or the name of the proprietor thereof printed thereon. See Graves v. Ashford (16 L. T. N. S. 98; L. Rep. 2 C. P. 412). Denying Plaintiff's sole Right of Representing or Performing Dramatic or Musical Piece. That the plaintiff was not the proprietor of, nor had he the sole liberty of representing [and performing] or causing to be represented [and performed] the said dramatic piece for musical composition] as alleged. That a Musical Composition was composed by Plaintiff for Defendant as accessory to Representation of a Dramatic Piece. That the alleged musical composition was part of a dramatic piece, to wit adapted to the stage by the defendant, with the aid of scenery, dresses, the alleged composition, and other music and accompaniments, the general design of which representation was formed by the defendant: and that the defendant employed the plaintiff, for reward paid to him by the defendant in that behalf, to compose the said musical composition as part of the said representation and dramatic piece, and as a mere accessory to the said dramatic piece, on the terms that in consideration of such reward, the said musical composition should become part of such dramatic piece as designed and adapted for representation by the defendant, and that the defendant should have the sole liberty of representing and performing, and causing and permitting to be represented and performed, the said musical composition with the said dramatic piece, and as an accessory thereto and as part thereof, and the alleged musical composition was composed by the plaintiff under and by virtue of the said employment, and upon the terms and for the purpose aforesaid, and the alleged representations and performances were representations and performances by the defendant of the said dramatic piece so designed and adapted as aforesaid, with the aid of the said scenery, dresses, and the said musical composition and other music and accompaniments. See Hatton v. Kean, 29 L. J. 20, C. P.; 7 C. B. N. S. 268. Form of Notice of Objections to be given with the Pleas in an Action for A. B., plaintiff, E. F., defendant. Take notice that the above named defendant means to rely, on the trial of this action, on the following objections: 1. That the defendant is not guilty of the alleged grievances. 2. That the plaintiff was not the proprietor of the said copyright. 3. That at the time of the alleged grievances there was no subsisting copyright in the said book. 4. That J. K., and not the plaintiff, was the author of the said book. 5. That L. M., and not the plaintiff, was the first publisher of the said book. 6. That N. O., and not the plaintiff, is the proprietor of the said copyright. 7. That the said book was first published with the title [specify the title of the book as first published] on the [specify the date of first publication] at , A.D. [specify the place of the first publication]. To Mr. C. D., plaintiff's attorney, [or agent.] day of G. H., defendant's attorney, [or agent.] (From Bullen and Leakes' Precedents, p. 719.) See examples of notices in Boosey v. Davidson (4 D. & L. 147); Sweet v, Benning (16 C. B. 459); Leader v. Purday (7 C. B. 4); Hatton v. Kean (29 L. J. 20, C. P.; 7 C. B. N. S. 268). |