MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ANR v. AMRITBIR SINGH

1. This is a suit for a) permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from infringing the various copyrighted software programs of the plaintiff, b) delivery of all the counterfeit software programs, c) rendition of accounts of profit, d) damages etc. The plaintiffs‟ case is against the infringement of computer software programs, by the defendant, which are included in the definition of „literary work‟ under Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiffs claim to have copyright in the said literary work by way of certificates of registration of copyright in them. The certificates are attached with the suit and they are exhibited as Ex. P-5 to P-26.

2. Two Local Commissioners were appointed by this Court on 20.04.2010. They seized 94 computers at location No. 1, viz. L-44, Verna Industrial Estate, Goa and 51 at location No. 2, viz. NE 2015:DHC:1530 Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Uma Enclave, 2nd Floor, Block-1, Road No.9, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034, both belonging to defendant No. 2. Mr. Mashal Adpaikar, the representative of the defendant was present at the time of the “spot proceedings”. The Hyderabad premises of the defendant was visited by the Local Commissioner, Mr. Ashish Dholakia and the Goa premises by the Local Commissioner, Mr. Amit Bansal. The Goa premises were inspected on 29th April, 2000 when 94 computers were examined and seized. The Hyderabad premises were inspected on the same date when 51 computers (47 computers and 4 servers) were seized. These 145 computers were later released on superdari to the defendants. The defendants were directed to show licenses/invoices, if any, which they had in their possession regarding the software programs which were installed on the said computers, but they could not do so; instead they stated that it would take a week to locate the invoices. It was evidenced that the programs installed on the said computers belonged to the plaintiffs. The defendants have not brought on record any certificate, document or invoice to show that they were bought from the plaintiffs. It has been so recorded in the evidence of the plaintiff, which has been led through their constituted attorney viz. Mr. J.K. Sharma. The plaintiffs claim to have developed, inter alia, the following computer programmes which are used by various business establishments and home users: (a) Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional; (b) Microsoft Office 2000 Professional;

(c) Microsoft Word 2000;

(d) Microsoft Windows 98;

(e) Microsoft Office 97 (Professional Edition); (f) Microsoft Visual Studio 6.0, Enterprise Edition; (g) Microsoft Visual Basic, Version 6.0 (Enterprise Edition); (h) Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 Enterprise Edition;

(i) Microsoft Office XP Professional;

(l) Microsoft Office Access 2007;

(m) Microsoft Office Excel 2007;

(n) Microsoft Office Groove 2007; (o) Microsoft Office OneNote 2007; (p) Microsoft Office Outlook 2007; (q) Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2007; (r) Microsoft Office Project Professional 2007; (s) Microsoft Office SharePoint Designer 2007; (t) Microsoft Office Visio Professional 2007 (u) Microsoft Office Word 2007

(v) Windows Vista Ultimate

3. The plaintiffs submit that the infringement has been carried-out by reproducing the plaintiffs‟ software by loading them onthe Hard Disc Drives (HDDs) of the computer without the license and with the help of pirated CDs or in excess of the software licensed purchased for a designated number of computers.

4. The plaintiffs submit that the defendants had only one license for Microsoft Office 2000 and 17 licenses for Microsoft Windows CAL 2000 Device. In other words, the moment Microsoft Office 2000 was installed on one computer and Microsoft Windows CAL 2000 Device was installed on 17 computers, the said licenses stood exhausted and these programs reproduced/installed on additional computers thereafter, would amount to infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs by way of end-user piracy.

5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they received information that the defendants were using large volumes of the software programs belonging to the plaintiffs for commercial purposes at their various offices. Subsequently, the plaintiffs contacted the defendants over the telephone for conducting a Software Asset Management Review in their organisation. As per the information received from commercial reliable sources, the plaintiffs claim to have become aware that defendant No.2 had 80 to 90 computers on which Microsoft Office program was uploaded; that their copyright was being infringed by end user piracy and the plaintiffs‟ own initial investigations indicated that at the premises of the defendant at Hyderabad as well as at Goa, a number of computers had pirated softwares installed in them were beyond the licensed number of programs. Subsequently, the Local Commissioners‟ report proved and corroborated their suspicion and their information to the extent that the Local Commissioners found 47 computers and four servers which were using the plaintiffs‟ software programs. The plaintiffs state that they have suffered monetary loss to the extent of Rs.20.00 lacs because of piracy of their programs. In addition to the monetary loss suffered by them, they also claim to