Microsoft Corporation and ors versus Satveer Gaur & anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Date of decision: 26/05/2020
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao
Brief Facts of the case
The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs 30 lakh as damages to Microsoft Corporation, Adobe Systems and Quest Software in connection with a suit against a Nehru Place company for using their pirated software. Microsoft Corporation, Adobe Systems and Quest Software (Plaintiffs) had moved the High Court against the Defendant, a company named ‘Chetu’ which provided IT services and solutions to its clients, and its related parties, after it came to its knowledge that the Defendant was using unlicensed/pirated software programs of the Plaintiffs on its computers.
The plaintiffs suffered incalculable damages to their intellectual property rights and business on account of various forms of copyright piracy in their software programs because reproducing the plaintiffs’ software and the packaging of that software so that purchasers are deliberately misled to believe that the product they are buying is genuine software.
Further, they filed the case because of the most damaging form of software piracy which occurs when businesses, corporations, companies, institutions, schools, non-profit organizations, etc., make additional copies of plaintiffs’ software without authorization. The reproduction of the plaintiffs’ software without the plaintiffs’ permission is an infringement of their copyright in their software programs.
Hence, the following plaintiffs filed a suit for damages against the defendant company who provides system solutions to it’s clients and other defendant is it’s system administrator.
- The plaintiff No.1 is Microsoft Corporation
- The plaintiff No.2 is Microsoft Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
- Plaintiff No. 3 is Adobe Systems.
- The plaintiff No.4 is Quest Software Inc.
Issues before Court
- Whether the court at Delhi is not vested with the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit?
- Whether the suit is devoid of any cause of action against the defendants?
- Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the copyright over the works claimed in the suit?
- Whether the defendants have infringed the copyright of the plaintiffs in the said works?
- Whether the defendants have purchased the necessary license from the plaintiff for the usage of the software in question?
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants, as prayed for in para 64 (a) of the plaint?
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of delivery up of the impugned products against the defendants, as prayed for in para 64(b) of the plaint?
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the rendition of accounts of the profits, as prayed for in para 64(c) of the plaint?
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for a sum of Rs.60,00,000 or any lesser amount from the defendant, as prayed for in para 64(d) of the plaint?
Decision of the Court
- With regards to issue no.1
The High Court of Delhi held that a suit can be filed at a place where the plaintiff has a principal place of office and not a subordinate office. The principal place of office of the plaintiff No.2 is in Delhi. Further, the Court stated that the registered Office of defendant No.2 is also in Delhi. Hence, the Courts at Delhi will have jurisdiction. - Defendant failed to appear for the issue no. 2 to 9 and the same was decided accordingly in the favor of the plaintiffs.
Further, the Delhi High Court awarded damages to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs in favor of the plaintiffs to be shared equally by all of them.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
