SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 2209

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
Microsoft Corporation & Anr – Appellants
Versus
Rupesh Waidande & Anr – Respondents
CS(COMM) 1049 of 2016 & I.A.7150 of 2010
Decided on : 14-12-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Bharat S. Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms.Ajunee Singh, Adv.

Copyright infringement in software programmes under the Copyright Act, 1957, leading to remedies including permanent injunction, delivery up of unlicensed software, and damages.

Headnote:

Copyright Infringement - Software - Copyright Act, 1957, Section 2(ffc), Section 2(o), Section 13(1)(a), Section 17(c), Section 14(b), Section 51 - The court found that the defendants infringed the copyright of the plaintiffs in their software programmes, leading to a decree of permanent injunction, delivery up of unlicensed software, damages of Rs. 20,00,000, and costs awarded to the plaintiffs.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing their copyright in software programmes, including Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, and Windows Server. The defendants were found to have unauthorized installations of the plaintiffs' software, leading to copyright infringement.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the defendants infringed the copyright of the plaintiffs in their software programmes, leading to a decree of permanent injunction, delivery up of unlicensed software, damages of Rs. 20,00,000, and costs awarded to the plaintiffs.

Issues: The issues framed by the court included infringement of copyright, entitlement to permanent injunction, claim of damages, and other reliefs sought by the plaintiffs.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs proved ownership of copyright in the software programmes and established infringement by the defendants, leading to the grant of permanent injunction, delivery up of unlicensed software, and damages. The defendants' failure to contest the evidence and the findings of the Local Commissioner supported the court's decision.

Final Decision: The court granted a decree of permanent injunction, delivery up of unlicensed software, damages of Rs. 20,00,000, and costs in favor of the plaintiffs.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Suit has been filed by the plaintiffs praying for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from directly or indirectly reproducing/storing/installing and/or using pirated/unlicensed software programmes of the plaintiff no.1, thereby infringing the copyright in the plaintiffs’ computer programmes/software titles. The plaintiffs further pray for delivery up, rendition of accounts, damages as also costs of the Suit.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Case of the plaintiffs:

i) Software

2. The plaintiff no.1 was set up in the year 1975 under the laws of the State of Washington, United States of America (in short, ‘USA’) and is a global software publisher for personal and business computing. The software products of the plaintiff no. 1 include operating systems for servers, personal computers (in short, ‘PC’) and intelligent devices; server applications for distributed computing environments, information worker productivity applications and software development tools.

3. The plaintiff no.2 is the Indian subsidiary of the plaintiff no. 1, set up in the year 1989. The plaintiff no.2 provides marketing, promotion, anti-piracy awareness campaigns and actions, and channel development support to the plaintiff no.1 or/and its affiliates in India.

4. The plaintiff no.1’s popular software products include the ‘Microsoft Windows Operating Systems” (various versions) as also application software such as “Microsoft Office” and development tools like “Visual Studio” and ‘Visual C++’. The ‘Microsoft Windows’ family of the plaintiff no. 1 includes software tools like Windows 1.0, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Me, Windows 2000, Window XP Home and Windows XP Professional, among others.

5. The ‘Microsoft Office’ family includes versions like Office 97, Office 2000, Office XP, Office 2003, Office 2007, Office 2010 and the product line includes Microsoft Access, Microsoft Excel, FrontPage, Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, Microsoft Project, Publisher and Outlook to name a few. These software are today installed and used on millions of computers all over the world, including in India. The products of the plaintiff no.1 are distributed in New Delhi through various authorized distributors.

ii) End User Agreement

6. The computer programs of the plaintiff no.1 are always licensed in a ‘soft” version of the ‘End-User License Agreement’, ‘Registration Card’ and other relevant ‘User Manuals’, all contained in the Original CD-ROM carrying the actual software. The licenses of the latest versions of the plaintiff no.1's computer programs are either bought off the shelf or a licensed copy of the software is supplied as Original Equipment Manufacturers (in short, ‘OEMs’) along with a PC, however, in both the circumstances the software requires activation.

7. The entire process of software registration can be completed via Internet or by speaking with a customer service representative of the plaintiff no.1. A unique Product Key or Installation ID is required for each installation. During the process of installation, the user is required to fill in the Installation ID or a unique Product Key number in order to finalize the installation and to activate the software. To ensure the end user's privacy, the plaintiffs use a oneway mathematical algorithm to create the hardware hash used by Product Activation to create the Installation ID. This ID is unique to the particular PC on which the software is loaded.

iii) Copyright of the plaintiffs in the Software and End User Agreement

8. Under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 (in short, ‘the Act’), the software programmes developed and marketed by the plaintiff no. 1 (and the plaintiff no.2 in India) would fall within the definition of ‘computer programmes’ under Section 2(ffc) and are also included in the definition of a ‘literary work’ under Section 2(o) of the Act. The plaintiff no. 1’s computer programmes are ‘works” that were first published and are also registered in the USA.

9. It is fu

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top