2021 Supreme(Mad) 1739
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. Jayachandran, J.
T.S.J. Media Private Limited, Represented by its Director, Arun Natarajan – Plaintiff
Versus
Boston Analytics Private Limited, Mumbai & Another – Defendants
C.S. No. 520 of 2008 & O.A. No. 587 of 2008
Decided On : 03-09-2021
For the Plaintiff :Sundar Narayan, R. Sunil Kumar, Advocates.
For the Defendant : set exparte.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 1 - Original Side Rules - Order IV Rule 1 - Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 55, 57 and 62 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) - Documentary evidence - Permanent injunction - Information -Infringement of copyright - It is leading provider of information and networking services to Private Equity and Venture Capitalists in India, through dedicated research of 10 employees, plaintiff has created database providing information on investments made by Private Equity Investors and Venture Capitalists in India - Information on database hosted by plaintiff on its website is in a more secured format - Information is obtained by customers of plaintiff through website developed and maintained by the plaintiff - Plaintiff has vast client base - Held, From documentary evidence, Court finds that plaintiff is a provider of information particularly in respect of Private Equity and Venture Capitalists. Engaged in research and collection of database, providing information on investments made by Private Equity Investors - Information are hosted by plaintiff on its website http://www.ventureintelligence.in and http://www.ventureintelligence.in.com. Any person intended to get data, can pay requisite fees and subscribe to plaintiff website. Thereby, they will have access to the database - Defendant herein taking advantage of this facility, during the month of February had frequently logged in to plaintiff’s website by making plaintiff to believe that they need access to website for evaluation - Thereafter, no doubt, defendant had subscribed to plaintiff’s website, but had published report on Private Equity Landscape in India with a small credit to plaintiff - Court finds that plaintiff has proved through documents referred above that exclusive right of plaintiff over database found in the plaintiff’s website www.ventureintelligence.in has been harvested by defendant unauthorisedly and had published it in their defendant’s website http://www.bostonanalytics.com without permission or license from the plaintiff’s - Suit is Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer : This Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C and Sections 55, 57 and 62 of Copyright Act, 1957.
(i). For a declaration that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the copyright in respect of the information stored in its database and accessible from its website at http://www.ventureintelligence.in.
(ii). For a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their servants, and agents from in any manner whatsoever infringing the copyright of the Plaintiff in respect of the information stored in the Plaintiff’s database and accessible from its website at http://www.ventureintelligence.in; by publishing or printing or storing or selling or distributing or marketing in any manner the information stored in its database and accessible from its website at http://www.ventureintelligence.in, in the present form.
(iii). For a mandatory injunction ordering and decreeing the Defendants to deliver to the Plaintiff for destruction and/or deletion all the existing copies of the information stored in the plaintiff’s database and accessible from its website at http://www.ventureintelligence.in and in the possession of the defendants.
(iv). Directing the Defendants to pay jointly or severally the Plaintiff damages quantified at Rs.25 lakhs and the Defendants be ordered or directed to render a true and faithful account of all the profits earned by the Defendants by selling and marketing the infringing copies in relation to the information stored in the Plaintiff’s database and accessible from its website at http://www.ventureintelligence.in to pay the Plaintiff such amounts as may be found payable on such accounts being taken.
(v). Ordering costs of the suit.)
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
1. This Suit is filed under the Copyright Act, 1957. The case of the plaintiff is that, it is leading provider of information and networking services to Private Equity and Venture Capitalists in India, through dedicated research of 10 employees, the plaintiff has created the database providing information on the investments made by Private Equity Investors and Venture Capitalists in India. The information on the database hosted by the plaintiff on its website is in a more secured format. The information is obtained by the customers of the plaintiff through website developed and maintained by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has vast client base.
2. The 1st defendant is a Private Limited Company which is engaged in providing fully customized knowledge services as well as flexible, preconfigured knowledge products and repositories through research and analysis.
3. In and around April-2008, the defendant produced a report nomenclatured as “The Private Equity Landscape in India” which appeared in a news report dated 10.04.2008 and in its website. On perusing the contents of the report and visiting the website hosted and maintained by the defendants, the plaintiff was shocked to find out that the defendants have lifted substantial portions of information stored in on and accessible on the plaintiff’s website http://www.ventureintelligence.in. On enquiry, the plaintiff came to understand that, the defendant after obtaining database accessibility of the plaintiff’s website under the guise of purchasing the information, had logged into the website of the plaintiff for more than 45 times from the IP address 59.93.247.82 between February 11 - 16, 2008. This happened when Mr.Harsh Baglaalso of the 1st defendant Company expressed his desire to subscribe to the package “Serial D” conceptualized by the plaintiff and using the 5 email ID’s mentioned in his email as login. He and his employees had logged into the plaintiff’s database over 35 times masquerading as evaluation. But in effect, committed violation of copyright and lifted the information of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendant has systematically lifted the information from the plaintiff’s website with the intention of passing off the same as if,