The main legal point established in the judgment is that the defense of 'misuse of copyright' by the holder thereof is not available under the Copyright Act, 1957. The court emphasized that the Act does not provide for copyright misuse as a defense, and allowing such a defense would tantamount to making copyright a conditional right, which is impermissible.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The question, whether in a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs, a defence of “copyright misuse” is available to the defendants, is for adjudication.

2. The two plaintiffs i.e. Tekla Corporation, Finland and Tekla India Pvt. Ltd. have sued the two defendants i.e. the defendant no.2 M/s. Caliber Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and its officer defendant no.1 Mr. Survo Ghosh pleading, that the plaintiffs have a copyright in software programme known as Tekla Structures and the defendants, instead of obtaining license thereof from the plaintiffs, have unauthorizedly installed the same.

3. Summons of the suit were issued and vide ex parte ad interim order dated 27th September, 2011 the defendants were restrained from reproducing / storing / installing and using unlicensed / pirated versions of plaintiffs’ software or from otherwise infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs and a Court Commissioner was appointed to visit the premises of the defendants to verify the infringement if any in the past by the defendants.

4. The defendants have contested the suit by filing a written statement. On 2nd December, 2013 issues were framed in the suit. The counsel for the defendants pressed for framing of the following issue as well:-

“Whether the conduct of the plaintiffs constitutes copyright misuse. If in affirmative, whether the plaintiffs are precluded from claiming a relief based on alleged infringement of such misused copyright? (OPD)”

and invited attention to the averments in preliminary objections 4 & 5 in the written statement of the defendants. The counsel for the plaintiffs opposed the framing of such an issue contending that there is no legal doctrine of “copyright misuse” on which issue was claimed by the defendants. Accordingly, the suit was adjournment for hearing arguments on the said aspect.

5. On 14th March, 2014 the counsel for the defendants referred to the following judgments:-

“1. Judgment dated 16th August, 1990 of U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit titled Lasercomb America Inc. Vs. Reynolds;

2. Judgment dated 6th August, 1997 of U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit titled Practice Management Information Corp. Vs. American Medical Ass’n;

3. Video Pipeline, Inc. Vs. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc. 342 F.3d 191 (3rd Cir., 2003);

4. Judgment dated 29th January, 1999 of U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit titled Alcatel USA Inc. Vs. DGI Technologies Inc.; and,

5. Judgment dated 25th November, 2003 of U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit titled Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC Vs. Wiredata, Inc.”

6. Noticing preliminary objections 4 & 5 in the written statement of the defendants as under:-

“4. It is submitted that the plaintiffs are involved in malpractices and restrictive conduct constituting ‘copyright misuse’and are accordingly precluded from claiming a relief based on that infringement. The Copyright misuse doctrine bars the culpable plaintiffs from prevailing on an action for the infringement of misused copyright. It is submitted that the doctrine of copyright misuse prevents copyright holders from leveraging their limited monopoly to allow them control of areas outside the monopoly and acts as a limitation on licensing restrictions and related conduct that are either restrictive, anti-competitive or otherwise violate the public policy underlying the copyright law. The copyright misuse defence to infringement of copyright has been recognized as a valid defence across several jurisdictions of the world. The Defendants reserve their right to reply on the corresponding case-laws during the course of their arguments.

5. It is submitted that the terms of use of Tekla Software of the Plaintiffs and their conduct during the course of the license term completely tanatamounts to misuse of their monopoly provided by their copyright. The Plaintiffs have been using their copyright to charge an unreasonable fee (apa