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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Microsoft Corporation - Appellant
Versus
Rupesh Waidande - Respondent
CS(COMM) 1049 of 2016 & I.A. 7150 of 2010
Decided On : 14-12-2022




Unauthorized use of copyrighted software constitutes infringement under the Copyright Act, allowing for injunctive relief and damages.

Headnote:(A) Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2(ffc), 2(o), 14, 17, and 51 - Infringement of software copyright - Plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against defendants for unauthorized use of their software, demanding damages of Rs.20,00,200/- - Defendants exhibited software piracy, failing to provide proof of genuine licenses - Decree for permanent injunction and damages granted. (Paras 22-44)

(B) Injunctive Relief - Established that plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, restraining defendants from further infringements. (Paras 34-41)

(C) Damages - Demonstrated evidence of infringement supports awarded damages. (Paras 36-43)

Table of Content
1. establishment of copyright ownership and software nature. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. details on end user license agreements and copyright laws. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. claims of copyright infringement by defendants. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. court proceedings and preliminary injunction order. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. plaintiffs' arguments on unauthorized use. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
6. court analysis confirming copyright infringement. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
7. granting of damages and reliefs to plaintiffs. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
8. final order and decree by the court. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)

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 Studiod `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, Front Page, 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 one-way mathematical algorithm to cr

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