TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi through its marketing subsidiary, Microsoft Corporation India Private Limited, which has its office at The Great Eastern Centre, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 and was set up in the year 1989 to provide marketing, promotion, anti-piracy awareness campaigns and actions and channel development support to the plaintiff /or its affiliates. The products of plaintiff No.1 are distributed in New Delhi through various authorized distributors. 3. As per the plaint, the plaintiff was set up in the year 1975 and is the biggest software publisher for personal and business computing in the world. It is engaged in the development, manufacture, licensing, and support of a range of software products for various computing devices. The plaintiffs po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnatories to both the Universal Copyright Convention as well as the Berne Convention, therefore, by virtue of section 40 of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with the International Copyright Order, 1999 protection is afforded to the plaintiffs works since they are created by authors or member countries and originate from and are first published in the said member countries. The plaintiff being the owner of the copyright in the aforesaid literary works within the meaning of the proviso to Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is entitled to all the exclusive rights flowing from such ownership as set out in Section 14 of the said Act. 6. The reproduction in any material form, including publication, performance, dissemination, translation, adap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icense : A consumer company can acquire a Microsoft Product under a Volume Licenses from an Authorized Reseller. 9. As per the plaint, defendant No.2, M/s Teja Computers located at 47-10-3/11, Flat No.104, Medicharla Towers, Near Diamond Park, Dwarkanagar, Vishkhapatanam-16 is a business entity engaged in marketing and selling of computer hardware including assembled desktop computers and peripherals. Defendants No.1Mr. David Raju Polamuri appears to be the proprietor of defendant No.2. 10. The case of the plaintiff against the defendants is that in the month of February, 2006, the plaintiff received information that the defendants were infringing the plaintiffs copyrights and other intellectual property rights by carrying on the bus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After hearing the plaintiffs, this Court vide order dated 25.05.2006 granted ex parte ad-interim injunction order against the defendants thereby restraining them from copying/re-producing, hard-disk loading on the computers, selling or distributing the two programmes, MS Windows XP Professional Version 2002 and MS Office 2000 or any other programmes in which the plaintiffs have the copyright, without their authority or licence. 14. It appears from the record that as the defendants failed to the written statement even after the four weeks time given by the court to do so therefore, on 17.01.2007 the defendants rights to file the written statement was closed and the plaintiff was ordered to lead evidence by way of affidavit. The Defendants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n). Ex.P-10- Court Certified Copy of Original Copyright Registration Certificate for Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0. Ex.P-11- Court Certified Copy of Original Copyright Registration Certificate for Microsoft Office XP Professional. Ex.P-12- Court Certified Copy of Original Copyright Registration Certificate for Microsoft Windows XP Professional. Ex.P-13- Court Certified Copy of Original Copyright Registration Certificate for Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003. Ex.P-14- Court Certified Copy of Original Copyright Registration Certificate for Microsoft Office Access 2007. Ex.P-15- Court Certified Copy of Original Copyright Registration Certificate for Microsoft Office Excel 2007. Ex.P-16- Court Certified Copy of Origina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also exhibited the relevant documents in support of their case. The evidence filed by the plaintiffs has gone unrebutted as no cross-examination of the plaintiffs witness was carried out. Therefore, the statements made by the plaintiffs are accepted as correct deposition. 19. Under these facts and circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for a permanent injunction. Hence, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed in terms of paragraph-37(a) (b) of the plaint. As far as the relief of damages and rendition of accounts are concerned, I am of the view that in view of the orders earlier passed in favour of the plaintiffs, they are entitled to the punitive damages to the tune of ₹ 2 lac in their favour. The plaintiffs are al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
