Full Text
Translation output
' K' i - ■/., HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CSfOSl No.1102/2009 Autodesk, Inc 8b Anr. .... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr.Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr.Bharatvir
Singh, Advocate
CSfOSl No.1102/2009 Autodesk, Inc 8b Anr. .... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr.Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr.Bharatvir
Singh, Advocate
VERSUS
Mr.N Rao 8b Ors Defendants
Through: Nemo.
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
■
A.- ORDER 29.05.2009 lA Nos.7776/2009 85 7778/2009
Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Original documents or certified copies thereof be filed within four weeks.
Applications are disposed of.
CSIOSI No.1102/2009 Plaint be registered. Issue summons to the defendants by ordinary process and registered A.D post on plaintiffs taking Steps within one week, returnable on 19^ August, 2009. lA No.7774/2009 , Issue notice to the defendants by ordinary process and registered
A.D post on plaintiffs taking steps within one week, returnable on 19^^
August, 2009.
The plaintiffs have contended that plaintiff No.l is the owner of copyright in various computer programmes including AutoCAD
(including all its versions, especially the latest one, AutoCAD 2009), CS(OS) No.1102/2009 Page 1of 9
2009:DHC:9729 AutoCAD LT, Autodesk Map, Autodesk MapGuide, Autodesk Raster
Design (previously known as CAD Overlay), AutoCAD Meehanical, Autodesk Inventor Professional, Autodesk VIZ (formerly known as 3D
Studio VIZ), Autodesk Revit, Autodesk Revit Series, Autodesk Civil SD, Autodesk Land Desktop, Autodesk Architectural Desktop, 3Ds Max, Cleaner, Flint, Combustion, Fire, Flame, Inferno^ Toxik, Plasma^
Character Studio, Maya,Alias etc. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that the Defendants'are using unlicensed/pirated versions of the Plaintiffs' software in their computer systems for their business purposes.
Defendant No.3, Pennar Engineered Building Systems Ltd. is alleged to be an entity engaged in manufacturing Cold Rolled Steel
Strips and Tubes, Electro Static Precipitators, Pre-Engineered Building systems. Road Safety Systems etc. and is allegedly carrying on its business activities from its office,located at West Wing,DHFL VC Silicon
Towers,Kondapur,Hyderabad.Defendants No.4 to 15 are alleged to be
^ the group companies ofDefendant No.3 and it is alleged thatthey carry out their business form the same premises as that of Defendant No.3.
Defendant No.1 is alleged to be Chairman of the Defendant No.3 company and Defendant No.2 is alleged to be the Head of the desrgn department ofthe Defendant No.3-company.The plaintiffs have alleged that while Defendants No. 1 and 2 are personally liable for the infringement of the Plaintiffs' copyright. Defendants No. 3 to 15 are liable on accountofthe unauthorized use ofthe plaintiffs software.
CS(OS)No.1102/2009 Page2of9 The plaintiffs have averred that they had received information that the defendants are using unlicensed software of Plaintiff No.l on approximately 30 computer systems for their work. The plaintiffs have averred that they had appointed Mr.Jatin Batra, an independent investigator to ascertain the extent of usage of the Plaintiff No.l's software by the Defendants. A detailed affidavit of the private
^ investigator appointed by the plaintiffs has been filed. Perusal of the
^ affidavit reveals that the investigator has claimed that during the course of his investigations it was revealed to him that the offices of the
Defendants at West Wing, DHFL VC Silicon Towers, Kondapur,, Hyderabad; 305, Saptagiri Towers, Begumpet, S.P. Road, Hyderabad and IDA, Patancheru, Medak District -502319 has around 22, 3 and 5 computer systems respectively dedicated for design work and that
AutoCAD 2004 and STAAD Pro software programmes are being used by . the defendants on these computer systems for their work.
The plaintiffs have also averred that a search of their registered user database has revealed that the defendants do not possess even a single license for the use of Plaintiff No.l's software programmes. The plaintiffs have contended that the above mentioned facts clearly indicate that the defendants are using pirated/unlicensed software of the Plaintiff No.l for their business purposes.
The plea of the plaintiffs is that the defendants have no right to use the pirated or unlicensed version ofPlaintiff No.I's software and the installation and use of unlicensed/pirated versions of Plaintiff No.l's
CS(OS)No.1102/2009 Page 3of9 . < f software by the defendants amounts to violation of the copyrights of the plaintiffs.
From the allegations made in the plaint and the application the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case regarding, the use of unlicensed/pirated versions of the Plaintiff No.I's software programmes by the defendants. Use of pirated/unlicensed version of the plaintiffs software shall cause irreparable loss and damage to the plaintiffs. The defendants have no right to use the pirated and unlicensed software of the plaintiffs in any manner.
The plaintiffs have averred that at no point of time they have condoned or acquiesced to the alleged unlawful conduct of the defendants in using unlicensed/pirated software of plaintiff No.l.
According to the plaintiffs continued use of unlicensed/pirated version of the software of the plaintiff No.1 shall cause grave harm and greater inconvenience and, therefore, the balance of convenience is in favor of
■
^ plaintiffs and against the defendants.. .
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances the plaintiffs are entitled for ex-parte interim injunction. Therefore the defendants or any of their agents or employees are restrained from using pirated/unlicensed software titles of plaintiff No.l including inter-alia
AutoCAD and its various versions and infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs in any manner. The defendants are also restrained from directly or indirectly reproducing and storing them on any storage
CS(OS)No.1102/2009 Page4of9 media in any manner so as to infringe the Plaintiff No.l's copyright till further orders.
Plaintiffto comply with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3.
Dasti. lA No.7777/2009 Thisis an application by the plaintiffs for enlargement of time for
^ compliance ofprovisions ofOrderXXXIX Rule 3bytwo weeks.
A.D post on plaintiffs taking steps within one week, returnable on 19^
August,2009. lA No.777572009 A.D post on plaintiffs taking steps within one week, returnable on 19^^
August,2009.
The learned counsel for the plaintiffs seeks ex-parte appointment
V il$ ofa Local Commissioner for preserving and protecting the incriminating
. evidence regarding alleged use of unlicensed/pirated versions of the
Plaintiff No.l's software. It is contended that unless a Local
Commissioner is appointed to visit the premises of the defendants, without giving notice to the defendants, the veiy purpose of instituting the above mentioned suit will be frustrated as the defendants would erase all the unlicensed/pirated versions of the Plaintiff No.l's software at its premises and the Plaintiffs would have no course open to
CS(OS)No.1102/2009 Page Sof9 establish unlicensed use of their software.
The plaintiffs have been able to make out a prima facie case regarding the use of pirated/unlicensed software products of the plaintiffcompanies by the defendants.
In the facts and circumstances Ms. Gunwant Dara Advocate, 127
Lawyers' Chambers, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi 110001
(Mobile: 9717726777)is appointed as a Local Commissioner to visit the premises of the Defendants at West Wing, DHFL VC Silicon Towers, Kondapur, Hyderabad.
The Local Commissioner shall visit the above mentioned premises of the defendants without prior notice to the defendants, and prepare inventories of all unlicensed/pirated software of plaintiffs including
. inter alia AutoCAD and its various versions, in the computer system/hard disk or in the Compact Discs/DVDs or any other storage media ofthe defendants at their premises and seize only such storage
^ .medias, in the Central Processing Unit or outside the Central
Processing Unit,having unlicensed/pirated software ofthe plaintiffs.
For ascertaining about the use of unlicensed/pirated software of the plaintiffs by the defendants, the Local Commissioner shall be entitled to take the assistance of the technical representatives of plaintiffs. For purposes of ascertaining the use of unlicensed/pirated software ofthe plaintiffs by the defendants,the Local Commissioner will be entitled to access and see only the unlicensed/pirated software ofthe plaintiffs and not other software or data of the defendants on their
CS(OS)No.1102/2009 Page6of9 computers and medias.
The defendants, however, shall be entitled to make back up of their other software, doeuments and flies in their storage media of eentral processing unit or in any other media, on any other storage/replicating media(s) which will be provided by the defendants, in case the medias of the defend^ts are seized by the Local
Commissioner on account of use of unlicensed/pirated software of the plaintiffs.
The defendants and their officials and employees are directed to disclose passwords of their eomputer systems so that the use of unlicensed and pirated software, if any, ean be ascertained by the Loeal
Commissioner. In case the defendants refuse to divulge the passwords of the computer systems so as to ascertain the use of unlicensed/pirated software, the Local Commissioner shall seize and seal the Central Processing Units and other medias suspected of having unlicensed/pirated software of the plaintiffs and keep them in a separate room(s) or in such other storage space which will be adequate for storing the seized material which will be provided by the defendants.
The Local Commissioner shalllock the seized material and sealthem.
The seized central processing units and/or other medias, thereafter, shall be released on superdarito the defendants.In case the defendants refuse to take such seized central processing units and/or storage media on superdari, the same be given to the plaintiffs on superdari who will be entitled to remove them from the premises ofthe
CS(OS)No.1102/2009 Page7of9 V defendants to store them at such other places as may be deemed appropriate by the plaintiffs.
The Local Commissioner shall also take photocopies of the licenses of the plaintiffs software, if any, held by the defendants and of such other documents which shall be deemed necessary by the Local
Commissioner.
The Local Commissioner shall be entitled to break open the locks
A- ofthe premises where the computer systems having unlicensed/pirated software of the plaintiffs are suspected to be in use, in case the defendants refuses to open the locks of the premises and give access to the Local Commissioner and representatives ofthe plaintiffs.
The concerned Station House Officer or any other concerned and appropriate police officials shall render all the assistance immediatelyin case the Local Commissioners seek police assistance to cany out this order,in case the defendants do not permitcarrying outofthis order on any account.
The fees of the Local Commissioner visiting the premises of
Defendants at Hyderabad shall be Rs.60,000/- which will be payable by the plaintiffs. The Local Commissioner shall be entitled to Airfare for visiting the premises of the defendants. The Local Commissioner shall also be entitled for local transportation charges, boarding and lodging expenses and such other expenses as will be incurred by him in executing the commission which will be paid by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs shall make all the arrangement for the visit of the Local
CS(OS)No.1102/2009 8of9 V )
Commissioner to the premises ofthe defendants.
The Local Commissioner shall file his report within two weeks after executing the commission.
Dasti. ii MAY 29,2009 ANIL KUMAR,J.
'Dev' If CS(OS)No.1102/2009 Page 9of9
•k
A
[d HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CS(OS) 1102/2009
AUTODESK ,INC & ANR Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Aarshia Behl, Advocate,
■
A.- ORDER 29.05.2009 lA Nos.7776/2009 85 7778/2009
Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Original documents or certified copies thereof be filed within four weeks.
Applications are disposed of.
CSIOSI No.1102/2009 Plaint be registered. Issue summons to the defendants by ordinary process and registered A.D post on plaintiffs taking Steps within one week, returnable on 19^ August, 2009. lA No.7774/2009 , Issue notice to the defendants by ordinary process and registered
A.D post on plaintiffs taking steps within one week, returnable on 19^^
August, 2009.
The plaintiffs have contended that plaintiff No.l is the owner of copyright in various computer programmes including AutoCAD
(including all its versions, especially the latest one, AutoCAD 2009), CS(OS) No.1102/2009 Page 1of 9
2009:DHC:9729 AutoCAD LT, Autodesk Map, Autodesk MapGuide, Autodesk Raster
Design (previously known as CAD Overlay), AutoCAD Meehanical, Autodesk Inventor Professional, Autodesk VIZ (formerly known as 3D
Studio VIZ), Autodesk Revit, Autodesk Revit Series, Autodesk Civil SD, Autodesk Land Desktop, Autodesk Architectural Desktop, 3Ds Max, Cleaner, Flint, Combustion, Fire, Flame, Inferno^ Toxik, Plasma^
Character Studio, Maya,Alias etc. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that the Defendants'are using unlicensed/pirated versions of the Plaintiffs' software in their computer systems for their business purposes.
Defendant No.3, Pennar Engineered Building Systems Ltd. is alleged to be an entity engaged in manufacturing Cold Rolled Steel
Strips and Tubes, Electro Static Precipitators, Pre-Engineered Building systems. Road Safety Systems etc. and is allegedly carrying on its business activities from its office,located at West Wing,DHFL VC Silicon
Towers,Kondapur,Hyderabad.Defendants No.4 to 15 are alleged to be
^ the group companies ofDefendant No.3 and it is alleged thatthey carry out their business form the same premises as that of Defendant No.3.
Defendant No.1 is alleged to be Chairman of the Defendant No.3 company and Defendant No.2 is alleged to be the Head of the desrgn department ofthe Defendant No.3-company.The plaintiffs have alleged that while Defendants No. 1 and 2 are personally liable for the infringement of the Plaintiffs' copyright. Defendants No. 3 to 15 are liable on accountofthe unauthorized use ofthe plaintiffs software.
CS(OS)No.1102/2009 Page2of9 The plaintiffs have averred that they had received information that the defendants are using unlicensed software of Plaintiff No.l on approximately 30 computer systems for their work. The plaintiffs have averred that they had appointed Mr.Jatin Batra, an independent investigator to ascertain the extent of usage of the Plaintiff No.l's software by the Defendants. A detailed affidavit of the private
^ investigator appointed by the plaintiffs has been filed. Perusal of the
^ affidavit reveals that the investigator has claimed that during the course of his investigations it was revealed to him that the offices of the
Defendants at West Wing, DHFL VC Silicon Towers, Kondapur,, Hyderabad; 305, Saptagiri Towers, Begumpet, S.P. Road, Hyderabad and IDA, Patancheru, Medak District -502319 has around 22, 3 and 5 computer systems respectively dedicated for design work and that
AutoCAD 2004 and STAAD Pro software programmes are being used by . the defendants on these computer systems for their work.
The plaintiffs have also averred that a search of their registered user database has revealed that the defendants do not possess even a single license for the use of Plaintiff No.l's software programmes. The plaintiffs have contended that the above mentioned facts clearly indicate that the defendants are using pirated/unlicensed software of the Plaintiff No.l for their business purposes.
The plea of the plaintiffs is that the defendants have no right to use the pirated or unlicensed version ofPlaintiff No.I's software and the installation and use of unlicensed/pirated versions of Plaintiff No.l's
CS(OS)No.1102/2009 Page 3of9 . < f software by the defendants amounts to violation of the copyrights of the plaintiffs.
From the allegations made in the plaint and the application the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case regarding, the use of unlicensed/pirated versions of the Plaintiff No.I's software programmes by the defendants. Use of pirated/unlicensed version of the plaintiffs software shall cause irreparable loss and damage to the plaintiffs. The defendants have no right to use the pirated and unlicensed software of the plaintiffs in any manner.
The plaintiffs have averred that at no point of time they have condoned or acquiesced to the alleged unlawful conduct of the defendants in using unlicensed/pirated software of plaintiff No.l.
According to the plaintiffs continued use of unlicensed/pirated version of the software of the plaintiff No.1 shall cause grave harm and greater inconvenience and, therefore, the balance of convenience is in favor of
■
^ plaintiffs and against the defendants.. .
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances the plaintiffs are entitled for ex-parte interim injunction. Therefore the defendants or any of their agents or employees are restrained from using pirated/unlicensed software titles of plaintiff No.l including inter-alia
AutoCAD and its various versions and infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs in any manner. The defendants are also restrained from directly or indirectly reproducing and storing them on any storage
CS(OS)No.1102/2009 Page4of9 media in any manner so as to infringe the Plaintiff No.l's copyright till further orders.
Plaintiffto comply with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3.
Dasti. lA No.7777/2009 Thisis an application by the plaintiffs for enlargement of time for
^ compliance ofprovisions ofOrderXXXIX Rule 3bytwo weeks.
A.D post on plaintiffs taking steps within one week, returnable on 19^
August,2009. lA No.777572009 A.D post on plaintiffs taking steps within one week, returnable on 19^^
August,2009.
The learned counsel for the plaintiffs seeks ex-parte appointment
V il$ ofa Local Commissioner for preserving and protecting the incriminating
. evidence regarding alleged use of unlicensed/pirated versions of the
Plaintiff No.l's software. It is contended that unless a Local
Commissioner is appointed to visit the premises of the defendants, without giving notice to the defendants, the veiy purpose of instituting the above mentioned suit will be frustrated as the defendants would erase all the unlicensed/pirated versions of the Plaintiff No.l's software at its premises and the Plaintiffs would have no course open to
CS(OS)No.1102/2009 Page Sof9 establish unlicensed use of their software.
The plaintiffs have been able to make out a prima facie case regarding the use of pirated/unlicensed software products of the plaintiffcompanies by the defendants.
In the facts and circumstances Ms. Gunwant Dara Advocate, 127
Lawyers' Chambers, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi 110001
(Mobile: 9717726777)is appointed as a Local Commissioner to visit the premises of the Defendants at West Wing, DHFL VC Silicon Towers, Kondapur, Hyderabad.
The Local Commissioner shall visit the above mentioned premises of the defendants without prior notice to the defendants, and prepare inventories of all unlicensed/pirated software of plaintiffs including
. inter alia AutoCAD and its various versions, in the computer system/hard disk or in the Compact Discs/DVDs or any other storage media ofthe defendants at their premises and seize only such storage
^ .medias, in the Central Processing Unit or outside the Central
Processing Unit,having unlicensed/pirated software ofthe plaintiffs.
For ascertaining about the use of unlicensed/pirated software of the plaintiffs by the defendants, the Local Commissioner shall be entitled to take the assistance of the technical representatives of plaintiffs. For purposes of ascertaining the use of unlicensed/pirated software ofthe plaintiffs by the defendants,the Local Commissioner will be entitled to access and see only the unlicensed/pirated software ofthe plaintiffs and not other software or data of the defendants on their
CS(OS)No.1102/2009 Page6of9 computers and medias.
The defendants, however, shall be entitled to make back up of their other software, doeuments and flies in their storage media of eentral processing unit or in any other media, on any other storage/replicating media(s) which will be provided by the defendants, in case the medias of the defend^ts are seized by the Local
Commissioner on account of use of unlicensed/pirated software of the plaintiffs.
The defendants and their officials and employees are directed to disclose passwords of their eomputer systems so that the use of unlicensed and pirated software, if any, ean be ascertained by the Loeal
Commissioner. In case the defendants refuse to divulge the passwords of the computer systems so as to ascertain the use of unlicensed/pirated software, the Local Commissioner shall seize and seal the Central Processing Units and other medias suspected of having unlicensed/pirated software of the plaintiffs and keep them in a separate room(s) or in such other storage space which will be adequate for storing the seized material which will be provided by the defendants.
The Local Commissioner shalllock the seized material and sealthem.
The seized central processing units and/or other medias, thereafter, shall be released on superdarito the defendants.In case the defendants refuse to take such seized central processing units and/or storage media on superdari, the same be given to the plaintiffs on superdari who will be entitled to remove them from the premises ofthe
CS(OS)No.1102/2009 Page7of9 V defendants to store them at such other places as may be deemed appropriate by the plaintiffs.
The Local Commissioner shall also take photocopies of the licenses of the plaintiffs software, if any, held by the defendants and of such other documents which shall be deemed necessary by the Local
Commissioner.
The Local Commissioner shall be entitled to break open the locks
A- ofthe premises where the computer systems having unlicensed/pirated software of the plaintiffs are suspected to be in use, in case the defendants refuses to open the locks of the premises and give access to the Local Commissioner and representatives ofthe plaintiffs.
The concerned Station House Officer or any other concerned and appropriate police officials shall render all the assistance immediatelyin case the Local Commissioners seek police assistance to cany out this order,in case the defendants do not permitcarrying outofthis order on any account.
The fees of the Local Commissioner visiting the premises of
Defendants at Hyderabad shall be Rs.60,000/- which will be payable by the plaintiffs. The Local Commissioner shall be entitled to Airfare for visiting the premises of the defendants. The Local Commissioner shall also be entitled for local transportation charges, boarding and lodging expenses and such other expenses as will be incurred by him in executing the commission which will be paid by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs shall make all the arrangement for the visit of the Local
CS(OS)No.1102/2009 8of9 V )
Commissioner to the premises ofthe defendants.
The Local Commissioner shall file his report within two weeks after executing the commission.
Dasti. ii MAY 29,2009 ANIL KUMAR,J.
'Dev' If CS(OS)No.1102/2009 Page 9of9
•k
A
[d HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CS(OS) 1102/2009
AUTODESK ,INC & ANR Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Aarshia Behl, Advocate,
VERSUS
MR. N RAO 85 ORS Defendants
Through: Mr. K.V. Bharti Upadhyaya,Advocate.
Through: Mr. K.V. Bharti Upadhyaya,Advocate.
CORAM:
V HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
20.07.2009 I.A.-8930/2009 This is an application under Order-23 Rule-3 for recording a compromise. The affidavit of the plaintiffs representative and that of
Defendant No.l who is also the authorized signatory of Defendant
No.3855 has been filed in support of this application. The Resolution of
Defendant Nos.3855 have also been enclosed along with this Application.
Having considered the-submissions and the directions,the Court is of the opinion that interests ofjustice requires that the same should be allowed.
I.A.-8930/2009 is accordingly allowed.
CSlOSl 1102/2009 Since this Court has today allowed 1.A.-8930/2009 under
Order-23, Rule-3, the Suit is decreed in terms of paragraph 2(a) to 2 (1) of the l.A.-8930/2009 and paragraph 33 (a) of the plaint, subject to the plaintiffs bearing the differential Court fee since it has settled the Suit and is entitled to received a sum of Rs.31,50,000/-. Concededly, a sum of Rs.22,15,000/- through Demand Draft issued by the State Bank of
India on 11.07.2009 has been handed over to the counsel for the plaintiff.
Since the parties have compromised their disputes, it is open to the defendants to unlock the premises containing the computer systems and other products seized from the said defendant.
Suit is decreed in terms of above order, subject to payment of differential Court fee. No costs.
JULY 20,2009 /vd/ S. RAVINDRA BHAT,J
20.07.2009 I.A.-8930/2009 This is an application under Order-23 Rule-3 for recording a compromise. The affidavit of the plaintiffs representative and that of
Defendant No.l who is also the authorized signatory of Defendant
No.3855 has been filed in support of this application. The Resolution of
Defendant Nos.3855 have also been enclosed along with this Application.
Having considered the-submissions and the directions,the Court is of the opinion that interests ofjustice requires that the same should be allowed.
I.A.-8930/2009 is accordingly allowed.
CSlOSl 1102/2009 Since this Court has today allowed 1.A.-8930/2009 under
Order-23, Rule-3, the Suit is decreed in terms of paragraph 2(a) to 2 (1) of the l.A.-8930/2009 and paragraph 33 (a) of the plaint, subject to the plaintiffs bearing the differential Court fee since it has settled the Suit and is entitled to received a sum of Rs.31,50,000/-. Concededly, a sum of Rs.22,15,000/- through Demand Draft issued by the State Bank of
India on 11.07.2009 has been handed over to the counsel for the plaintiff.
Since the parties have compromised their disputes, it is open to the defendants to unlock the premises containing the computer systems and other products seized from the said defendant.
Suit is decreed in terms of above order, subject to payment of differential Court fee. No costs.
JULY 20,2009 /vd/ S. RAVINDRA BHAT,J
JUDGMENT