Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Rmc Project Management International, Llc – Appellant
Versus
Whizlabs Software Private Limited & Ors. – Respondents
CS(COMM) 124 of 2018
Decided On : 21-08-2023
The plaintiff, a software company, filed a copyright infringement suit against the defendants, alleging that the defendants' software infringed the copyright in the plaintiff's software. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants' software contained questions and distracters that were verbatim copies or substantially similar to those in the plaintiff's software. The defendants denied the infringement and claimed that their software was based on open-source information and that the similarities between the two software programs were due to the common source material. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that it was the owner of the copyright in the software and that the defendants had infringed the copyright. The court also found that the defendants' software was a derivative work that was entitled to its own copyright protection. The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a software company, filed a copyright infringement suit against the defendants, alleging that the defendants' software infringed the copyright in the plaintiff's software. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants' software contained questions and distracters that were verbatim copies or substantially similar to those in the plaintiff's software. The defendants denied the infringement and claimed that their software was based on open-source information and that the similarities between the two software programs were due to the common source material.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that it was the owner of the copyright in the software and that the defendants had infringed the copyright. The court also found that the defendants' software was a derivative work that was entitled to its own copyright protection.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was the owner of the copyright in the software. 2. Whether the defendants had infringed the copyright. 3. Whether the defendants' software was a derivative work that was entitled to its own copyright protection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that it was the owner of the copyright in the software. The court also found that the defendants' software was a derivative work that was entitled to its own copyright protection.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit.
JUDGMENT
1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff praying for the following reliefs:
"(a) A decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants, their employees, subordinates, representatives, agents and all other persons claiming under them or acting in concert with them from infringing in any manner the Plaintiff's copyright in the said PM FASTrack software and literary works comprised in the said PM FASTrack software and from reproducing/copying/illegally using or substantially reproducing/copying/illegally using the PM FASTrack software and any part thereof and any of the literary work in the said PM FASTrack software and from issuing, circulating, distributing or in any manner disseminating infringing copies of the Whizlabs Software to any person, third party or the public;
(b) A decree of delivery up, against the Defendants, their employees, subordinates, representatives, agents and all other persons claiming under them or acting in concert with them, for destruction/deletion all of the Defendant's Whizlabs software related manuals or documents which are a reproduction of or copy or a substantial reproduction or a copy of any of the manuals, documents or contents of the PM FASTrack software and literary work in the said PM FASTrack software belonging to the Plaintiff and infringing copies of the Defendant's Whizlabs software;
(c) A decree of payment of Rs.50,00,000.00 (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) towards rendition of a true and faithful accounts of all the profits earned by defendants by using, transferring, divulging, selling, distributing the Whizlabs software, or reproducing/copying or substantially reproducing/copying in any manner any of the PM FASTrack software and the literary work in the said PM FASTrack software belonging to the Plaintiff, and the Defendants be further ordered and decreed to pay to the Plaintiff such amount as may be found due on such account being taken;
(d) A decree of damages be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants, on account of the loss of reputation, goodwill, prospective clientele and as and by way of exemplary or punitive damages;
(e) For costs of the suit; and"
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that Ms. Rita Mulcahy, the CEO and founder of the RMC Project Management Incorporated, the parent company of the plaintiff, authored a book titled `PMP Exam Prep. (hereinafter referred to as the `PMP Test Book'), published in the year 1998 in the United States of America (in short `USA'). It is considered the best-selling Project Management Certification review book in the world, and is listed on the popular e-commerce website, Amazon.com, in the section of top 500 in "All Books" since 2004. The copyright in the literary work in the current and previous editions of the PMP Test Book is validly registered in the USA by Ms.Rita Mulcahy and has thereafter, been assigned to the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff asserts that based on the PMP Text book published in 1998, Ms. Rita Mulcahy developed a Project Management related software application called PM FASTrack (hereinafter referred to as the `PM Software'), which is designed to simulate the actual Project Management Institution's PMP Certification exam in every detail. The first version of the PM Software was published in the United States on 03.10.2000. Thereafter, subsequent versions of the PM Software have been developed and published. The PM Software's database of 1,400+ questions allows candidates to take examination by knowledge area, process group, keyword/concept, PMP and Super PMP simulation. Many of the questions and distracters in the PMP Test Book have been adapted in the PM Software's subsequent editions to capture new terms and hypothetical/situational questions. The plaintiff asserts that the PM Software is the best selling PMP examination simulation software worldwide in the field of Project Management.
4. The plaintiff claims that the questions and distracters contained in the PM Softw
Unauthorized use of copyrighted software constitutes infringement under the Copyright Act, allowing for injunctive relief and damages.
Court ruled that unauthorized software use constitutes copyright infringement and emphasized the necessity of valid licenses for software usage.
The court upheld the plaintiff's copyright infringement claims, confirming ownership and establishing substantial similarity between the plaintiff's works and the defendant's products, which constitu....
Copyright infringement in software programmes under the Copyright Act, 1957, leading to remedies including permanent injunction, delivery up of unlicensed software, and damages.
The plaintiff's teaching method, including tuition classes outside school hours and notes beyond the curriculum, could make him the owner of copyright to that extent, a matter to be decided at trial.
The court ruled that jurisdiction objections must be accepted based on the plaint's claims, enabling a foreign entity's operational presence via a local subsidiary to maintain a suit under the Copyri....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the treatment of the film and the manner of its presentation were quite different from the plaintiff's novel, and there was no substantial sim....
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
