Back
High Court Of Delhi
FE ENGINIRING CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
LG CABLE LIMITED - Respondent
Decided On : 08/07/2002
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT - Civil Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - Copy Right Act, 1957, Section 2(c), Section 2(o), Section 14 - The court analyzed the allegations of copyright infringement by the plaintiffs against the defendants in relation to the manuals and drawings. It discussed the legal provisions of the Copyright Act, emphasizing the definition of copyright, reproduction of work, and substantial part thereof. The court referred to case laws to establish the principles of substantial reproduction and violation of copyright. After a detailed comparative study of the manuals and drawings, the court concluded that there was no substantial reproduction of the plaintiffs' work by the defendants, and hence, no injunction was granted in favor of the plaintiffs.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging copyright infringement and sought a permanent injunction against the defendants for copying and exploiting their manuals and drawings related to live line installation of Optical Ground Wire (OPGW). The defendants refuted the allegations, claiming that the technology was in the public domain and that their manuals were based on their own skill and judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no substantial reproduction of the plaintiffs' work by the defendants, and hence, no injunction was granted in favor of the plaintiffs. The court emphasized that the similarities in the manuals and drawings did not amount to a violation of copyright as alleged by the plaintiffs.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was copyright infringement by the defendants due to alleged similarities in the manuals and drawings. The court also considered the requirement for granting an injunction in such cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles of substantial reproduction and violation of copyright as established in the Copyright Act and case laws. It emphasized the need to assess the substantiality and importance of similarities in determining copyright infringement.
Final Decision: The court concluded that there was no substantial reproduction of the plaintiffs' work by the defendants, and hence, no injunction was granted in favor of the plaintiffs. The matter was listed for further proceedings.
( 1 ) AFTER arguments of the parties were heard on the application unddr Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the order was reserved, the parties filed further pleadings relating to the said application and, therefore, I heard the parties once again on. 16. 7. 2002 and thereafter, the order was reserved. Now, after goimg through all the pleadings of the parties, I propose to finally dispose the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil| Procedure.
( 2 ) THE plaintiffs herein filed a suit against the defendants alleging infringement of copy right and have sought for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining the said defendants, their servants, agents and all other acting on their behalf from infringing the copy" right vested with the plaintiff no. 1 in respect of Annexures "a" and "c" i. e. Live Line installation Procedure and Manual and also from desisting them from copying and exploiting the drawings and descriptions contained in the aforesaid two manuals and also from using and applying and/or exploiting the infringing work being Annexure-E in any work or contract awarded to the defendants.
( 3 ) ALONG with the aforesaid suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil procedure was filed in this court, on which notice was issued. On service of notice, defendants have entered appearance and have filed their written statement and reply to the injunction application refuting the allegations in the plaint and also in the injunction application. As the rejoinder to the application was filed during the course of arguments, a sur reply is filed by the defendants to which objection was raised by the plaintiffs on the ground that new facts have been stated. Therefore, the matter was re-heard by me as stated hereinbefore. By this order, I propose to dispose of the said application.
( 4 ) IT is alleged that the plaintiff No. 2 has been in the business of installation of Optical Ground Wire (OPGW in short) since 1982. It is also stated that the plaintiff No. 2 has installed till the year 2000, 3500 kms. of OPGW in fully live line conditions. The plaintiffs, it is stated, worked out and developed manuals being Annexure A and C , for fully live line installation under Indian conditions and, therefore, the plaintiff No. 1 holds and is the proprietor of the copy right for the aforesaid work of live line installation procedure and manual. It is stated that the unique technique of installation of Optical Ground Wire (OPGW) by replacement of existing ground wire in fully live line conditions was developed by Mr. Masami Obara, managing Director of the plaintiff No. 2. It is alleged that considerable expertise, money and efforts have been put in to develop the said know-how, process and manual. The said manuals describe in detail, with complete diagrams and drawings,"the entire process and know-how.
( 5 ) IT is stated that in or around January, 1998 m/s. Power Grid Corporation of India awarded a contract in favour of plaintiff No. 2 and the said contract was for Live Line Installation of Optical Ground Wire. While accepting the aforesaid contract, the plaintiff no. 2 confirmed to M/s. Power Grid Corporation of India that it would, shortly, incorporate a wholly owned indian subsidiary pursuant to which plaintiff No. 2 was incorporated with effect from 19. 8. 1998. For implementation and execution of the aforesaid contract, plaintiff No. 2 had to engage sub-contractors and the said work was divided in two parts and allotted to sub-contractors. One such sub-contractor was defendant no. 2 and the other was given to plaintiff No. 2 to carry out the work in part of the areas. A copy of the Live line Procedure and Installation Manual was submitted to m/s. Power Grid Corporation of India in or around october, 1998 and the same was approved on 31. 12. 98. The defendant No. 2 was also handed over a copy of the said manual.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
