Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2201
High Court of Delhi
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
Tech Plus Media Private Ltd.
Versus
Jyoti Janda & Others
CS(OS) No. 119 of 2010 & IA Nos. 920, 924 of 2010
Decided on: 29-09-2014
For the Plaintiff:Maninder Acharya, Sr. Adv. with Vikas Sethi, Yashish Chandra, Advocates.
For the Defendants:Mithilesh Kumar, Mallika Arjun, Advocates.
The plaintiff, as a juristic person, must disclose the work, the author thereof, and the agreement under which the author made the plaintiff the owner of the copyright to maintain a suit for copyright infringement.
Headnote:
Copyright Infringement - Information Technology - Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2(o), 14 - The court dismissed the suit for copyright infringement, finding that the plaintiff failed to plead material propositions of fact essential to succeed in an action for infringement of copyright.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sued for copyright infringement, alleging that the defendants copied confidential information and databases constituting the plaintiff's trade secrets. The defendants contested the suit, denying the plaintiff's proprietary rights in the databases and alleging lack of copyright ownership by the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead material propositions of fact essential to succeed in an action for infringement of copyright. It held that the plaintiff, as a juristic person, cannot be the author of any work in which copyright may exist without disclosing the said work, the author thereof, and the agreement under which the author made the plaintiff the owner of the copyright.
Issues: The issues revolved around the plaintiff's proprietary rights in the databases, the authorship of the alleged copyright, and the lack of sufficient pleading of the existence of a copyright in favor of the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that evidence beyond pleadings cannot be led, and the plaintiff must disclose the work, the author, and the agreement under which the plaintiff became the owner of the copyright. It also highlighted the need for material propositions of fact or law affirmed by one party and denied by the other to frame issues.
Final Decision: The court pronounced judgment against the plaintiff, dismissing the suit for copyright infringement, and refrained from awarding costs to either party.
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyright, passing off, unfair competition and for ancillary reliefs of rendition of accounts, delivery and damages, pleading:-
(a) that the plaintiff is a leading industry publication house in the sphere of Information Technology having a print media publication called IT Price Var and online news portal called ITVARNEWS.NET dedicated to Information Technology channels and professionals;
(b) the said publication deals with latest developments, trends and news in the area of Information Technology including interviews of industry leaders, analysis of existing and future trends;
(c) the plaintiff, over a period of time has developed its detailed confidential electronic databases not just of existing clients and customers of the plaintiff but also containing their contact points; the plaintiff has also developed detailed database of entities which could be targeted for subscription of its magazine;
(d) the aforesaid databases have been developed over a period of nine years and constitute confidential data and information of the plaintiff constituting its trade secrets;
(e) the plaintiff has also developed a unique system of information processing of Release Orders tailored to the requirements of publishing information technology journals;
(f) the plaintiff has also a evolved very distinctive, detailed and comprehensive data, information and databases pertaining to running of business of information technology publications and websites in India;
(g) the plaintiff has also created databases pertaining to its website including details of general comments, dates of such comments/posts along with details of last post and internet protocol addresses;
(h) that the aforesaid confidential data and information are the original literary and artistic works of the plaintiff and are stored on computers and computer systems and communication devices of the plaintiff;
(i) the plaintiff has copyright in the said information being the expression of the plaintiff’s original and inventive thoughts and the plaintiff has expended immense original skill, thought process, imagination in the same;
(j) that the defendant no.1 was employed as Management Information Systems Executive with the plaintiff on 22nd August, 2008, to assist the Director of the plaintiff and to keep on regularly checking out all online activities and back office electronic activities of the plaintiff Company and was interacting with the major clients of the plaintiff and owing to the nature of her job was given access to all the aforesaid data;
(k) that as per the policy of the plaintiff Company, the defendant and also all other employees were not to engage themselves with any other media organization employer and were required to maintain confidentiality qua all the aforesaid data;
(l) that the defendant no.2 Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Jha was recruited to the post of Correspondent with the plaintiff w.e.f. 1st April, 2008 and the letter of his employment also prohibited him from engaging in any other business and required him to maintain confidentiality qua all copyrights of the plaintiff;
(m) that in the third week of October, 2009 the plaintiff observed a new website in the name of www.thenewsxpress.com (impleaded as defendant no.3) with a parallel business model to that of the plaintiff, for supplying exactly similar kind of content/services as that supplied by the plaintiff’s publications;
(n) that the plaintiff in October, 2009 installed surveillance devices in its premises and which was objected to by the defendants no.1&2 and who resigned and were relieved on 31st October, 2009;
(o). that subsequently the plaintiff found the competitive website www.thenewsxpress.com impleaded as defendant no.3 to have become very aggressive and selling its services at 50% of the rate at which the plaintiff was offering similar services and which led to the plaintiff’s publi
