Delhi High Court
Microsoft Corporation And Anr vs Nilesh And Anr on 18 May, 2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment :18.5.2015
CS(OS) 2326/2011
MICROSOFT CORPORATION AND ANR. ......Plaintiffs
Through: Ms.Krutika Vijay and Mr.Ravin
Galgotia, Advocates.
Versus
NILESH AND ANR. .......Defendant
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (oral)
1 The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent
injunction as also damages.
2 The plaint discloses that the plaintiff no.1 Microsoft Corporation
is registered in the USA. Plaintiff no.2 is the wholly owned and
subsidiary of plaintiff no.1 having its registered office in Delhi. The
business activities of the company are software publishing for personal
and business accounts. The plaintiff no.1 has a worldwide and global
reputation. The software of the plaintiff includes used operating,
systems software, MISCROFOST WINDOWS (various versions) and
application software such as MICROFOST OFFICE (various versions)
and VISUAL STUDIO (various versions). Apart from these software
programs the plaintiffs also manufacture a large range of computer
peripherals (hardware). The software developed and manufactured by
the plaintiff are "computer programs" within the meaning of Section
2(ffc) of the Copyright Act, 1957. They are "works" and are entitled to
be protected.
3 The defendant no.2 has a shop at Bapu Building, Lamington
Road, Mumbai which is engaged in marketing and selling of computer
hardware including branded computers and peripherals. Defendant
no.1 is the proprietor of defendant no.2.
4 In August, 2011 the plaintiffs received information that the
defendants were infringing the plaintiffs copyright and his other
intellectual property rights by carrying on the business of unauthorized
Hard Disk Loading of the plaintiffs' software programs on to the
branded computers sold by them to their customers. The said unlicensed
software programs were not accompanied by any original certificate of
Authenticity label, Holographic Software Installation. The defendants
are guilty of infringing the plaintiffs rights and accordingly the present
suit was filed.
5 On 20.9.2011, a local commissioner had been appointed to visit
the premises of the defendants at Mumbai he has since filed his report.
The laptop inspected by the technical expert of the plaintiff found that
the same was loaded with the pirated software of the plaintiff. The local
commissioner had prima facie concluded that the defendant was guilty
of infringing the intellectual rights of the plaintiffs. The laptop was
seized and thereafter and handed over to the defendants on superdari.
6 The defendants in spite of service did not appear. They were
proceeded ex parte on 07.11.2012.
7 Ex parte evidence by way of affidavit of PW-1 (constituted
attorney of the plaintiffs) has been filed. PW-1 has reiterated all the
averments made in the plaint and has proved various documents
delineated as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW-1/26.
8 The plaintiff has established and proved his case.
9 Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and by way of the
permanent injunction, the defendants, their directors, officers, servants
and agents and all others acting for and on their behalf are restrained
from using or otherwise copying, selling, offering for sale, distributing,
hard-disk loading, issuing to the public, counterfeit/unlicensed versions
of Microsoft Office 2007, Miscrosoft Windows 7 or any other software
program of the plaintiffs in any manner which amounts to infringement
of the plaintiffs' copyright. The defendants are also directed to destroy
all the plaintiffs software programs including the hard disk, diskettes,
packaging and advertising material, labels, stationery articles and all
other infringing materials. The plaintiffs are also awarded damages
which are quantified at Rs.1,00,000/-. Decree sheet be prepared
accordingly.
10 Suit of the plaintiff is disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
MAY 18, 2015
ndn
