an act that is technically an infringement can be called de
minimis if it is thought to be outside the purpose of the law to catch it; the claim can then be dismissed with costs. This decision involves a value judgment that the complaint should either have been resolved without taking up the time of a court or is a minor irritant that, like the unintentional jostle in a crowded street, the complainant should have borne with equanimity. This maxim protects a trivial wrong though infringes legal right of other . But the maxim does not protect a wrongdoer when the wrong is not trivial in nature and a harm is caused or a legal right is infringed . X walks on through the Ys land , without Ys permission , only for first time , without causing damage to the land of Y . If for once , then it is trivial matter ,and the maxim would protect him , but if X repeats again and again to establish his right of way upon the Ys land then it does not remain a trivial matter and it becomes a tort and the maxim would not then protect X . SUBJECT
In legal system in India, where the de minimis theory is
applicable only to Copyright law, in the U.S. it is actively used as defence against Copyright and Trademark infringement both. The concept of de minimis is applicable when a sample of a musical work, an excerpt from a literary work, a photograph or any artistic Copyrighted work is used unauthorisedly but the use of which is so small or inconsequential that it is likely to cause no significant harm to the Copyright holder. CASE LAW`S
In the leading case of Coward Vs. Baddeley , a by-stander
touched a fireman on the arm to attract his attention to another part of a building where a fire was raging . On a suit filed by the fireman for battery , the Court held that the by-stander was not liable for battery on the basis of maxim de minimis non curat lex . ENGLISH CASE In Newton v. Diamond , the Beastie Boys, a famous hip-hop band, used a three-note segment from a musical composition by avant-garde jazz composer James Newton. The court found that this copying was de minimis. The sequence, which the Beastie Boys had digitally looped into the background of its recording Pass the Mic, was a simple, minimal, and insignificant part of Newtons musical composition and lacked any distinctive elements. Raj Kumar Makhija and others Vs. M/s. S.K. and Co. and others 2012 (9) ADJ 337 (DB). The Division Bench explaining the principle observed that where the shortfall in deposit is of a negligible amount the aforesaid principle can be applied and the shortfall may be ignored. What would be a negligible amount would depend upon the facts of each case. In the above case before the Division Bench the tenants were required to deposit pendente lite and future damages at the rate of `.1,000/- per month but they deposited only at the rate of `.700/- per month. The Court refused to apply the above principle as the shortfall was not held to be of trivial amount. One of the land mark case; India TV independent news v. Yashraj telefilms Pvt Ltd ., Where the Delhi high court have used this doctrine as a defence and mentioned that minimum amount of sample copied may not lead to copyright infringement.
Saregama India Ltd v. Viacom 18 Motion Pictures the Calcutta High
Court also dealt with copyright infringement. A few words of a famous song from an old film had been used in a recently released film. In a prima facie opinion, the court held that as the few words were segregated from the rest of the song, no copyright claim could be made, as these words were used in common parlance