Bangalore District Court
Venus Industries vs Autodesk Inc on 24 April, 2026
KABC010208132025
Govt. of Karnataka TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in suits
(R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BENGALURU CITY
(CCCH.11)
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT: SRI GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI,
B.A. LL.B.(Spl)
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
O.S.No.5808/2025
PLAINTIFF/S : Venus Industries
Represented by its Partner
Mr.Raghunandan Prasad,
Having office at Devayani Industrial
Complex, No.4, Gowdanapalya,
Subramanyapura, Bangalore - 560061.
[By Sri.V.R.R., Advocate]
/Vs/
DEFENDANT/S 1 Autodesk Inc.
Represented by its Director,
Having office at 111 McInnis Parkway San
Rafael, 94903 California USA.
Also operating from :
Floor 7th Sunriver,
Embessy Golf Links Business Park,
Challaghhatta, Bengaluru,
Karnataka - 560071
(Exparte)
2
O.S.No.5808/2025
Date of Institution of the suit : 13.08.2025
Nature of the Suit : Declaration and
Injunction
Date of commencement of : 22.01.2026
recording of evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 24.04.2026
was pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
0 8 11
(GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI)
VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff has filed this suit seeking the relief of declaration that, plaintiff company has not engaged in any unauthorized use of Auto CAD software as alleged by the defendant company and relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant company and its representatives from making further allegations or threats of legal action against plaintiff company concerning use of Auto CAD Software.
3
O.S.No.5808/2025
2. It is averred in the plaint that, plaintiff is affiliated with brand name Konark Meters is Bangalore based company situated at Devayani Industries Complex No.4 Gowdanapalya, Subramanyapura, Bangalore and plaintiff company was established in the year 2000 as part of Klas Group of Companies. Plaintiff company is a registered commercial entity specializing in water meter engineering and supply. It has earned industry recognition for its dedication in precision engineering products which cater both utility and domestic water metering requirements. It has steadily evolved into one of India's premier manufacturers and solution providers in the field of water measurement with an emphasis on quality, durability and innovation. It has positioned itself as trusted partner for various municipal and private water authorities across the country. It has focused on delivering highly accurate and reliable water meters that meet both national and international standards. The manufacturing processes are ISO 9001 certified underscoring the organization's commitment to quality management systems and continuous improvement. Plaintiff's offerings include water meters such 4 O.S.No.5808/2025 as multi jet and Woltmann type meters. Being a standardized product, framework for the design and internal components is dictated by ISO and ISI standards and do not allow for any deviation for the same. It has emphasized transparency in its operations and does not engage in high technology design or CAD based engineering focusing instead on robust mechanical and industrial solutions prioritizing process improvements and maintaining quality standards. With a clear operational scope confined to assembly and testing of water meters, the plaintiff company has no functional requirement for complex design software such as Autodesk products nor does it maintain any in house digital design division. The defendant company Autodesk inc. is a global leader in design and make technology empowering innovators across architecture, engineering, construction, product design, manufacturing and media industries. It has its office at 111 McInnis Parkway San Rafael 94903 California USA.
3. The defendant, Autodesk Inc., is a global leader in design and "make" technology, providing advanced software 5 O.S.No.5808/2025 solutions across architecture, engineering, construction, manufacturing, product design, and media industries. Its flagship products, including AutoCAD, Revit, Fusion 360, and Maya, are widely used by professionals worldwide. The defendant company claims to promote responsible innovation, compliance, and protection of its intellectual property through global licensing programs and audit mechanisms. On 04.07.2025, the defendant company initiated communication via email stating that the plaintiff company had been selected for a software audit to evaluate usage of Autodesk software. Subsequently, on 07.07.2025, further communication was made reiterating the audit requirement.
4. On 08.07.2025, the defendant sent an email stating that "partial data" was being shared for the plaintiff's reference. On the same day, another email alleged the presence of unauthorized installations of AutoCAD on certain systems identified by names such as Vijaykumar, Prashant P.C, and Venus P.C. However, these allegations were unsupported by any direct evidence linking the said systems 6 O.S.No.5808/2025 or user credentials to the plaintiff company. The communication merely contained generic machine names and login identifiers, without establishing ownership or association with the plaintiff. On 10.07.2025, the defendant issued another email requesting a response from the plaintiff and stating that timely input would avoid escalation.
5. Thereafter, on 11.07.2025, the plaintiff received multiple successive emails from the defendant alleging non- cooperation and warning of imminent escalation. The defendant's legal representatives, Jotwani Associates, also attempted to contact the plaintiff through calls and emails, stating that the defendant would be compelled to escalate the matter. On 14.07.2025, another email was sent alleging that despite multiple attempts, the plaintiff had failed to cooperate, leaving the defendant with no option but to escalate the issue.
6. On 15.07.2025 the plaintiff company issued a categorical denial, stating that the plaintiff is a small-scale 7 O.S.No.5808/2025 enterprise engaged solely in the assembly and testing of water meters. It has no requirement or usage of Autodesk design software in its business operations. None of the alleged systems, login credentials, or user identities mentioned by the defendant exist within the plaintiff's IT infrastructure. The plaintiff further requested the defendant to close the matter immediately, as the allegations were baseless and unsupported by evidence. On 15.07.2025, the defendant, Autodesk Inc., addressed an email to the plaintiff company requesting a meeting and insisting that the plaintiff either accept the allegations or furnish an explanation for its denial in light of the so-called "shared data." Prior to the same, on 24.07.2025, the plaintiff company received an email enclosing an IP Caution Notice issued by Jotwani Associates LLP on behalf of the defendant. The said notice threatened legal action under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, alleging unauthorized use of software. The communication was coercive in nature and sought to compel the plaintiff to concede to allegations without furnishing any cogent or verifiable evidence.
8
O.S.No.5808/2025
7. The plaintiff company submits that it has consistently adhered to all applicable copyright laws and software licensing requirements. All software, if any, used within its operational infrastructure is legitimately procured, duly licensed, and strictly regulated. The plaintiff maintains robust internal compliance mechanisms, ensuring adherence to intellectual property laws, licensing norms, and regulatory standards. The plaintiff has, over the years, built a reputation for lawful and ethical business practices, particularly in matters concerning intellectual property rights, Software licensing compliance; and Regulatory adherence. Such reputation is the result of continuous diligence, internal audits, and proactive compliance measures. The allegations made by the defendant are baseless, unsubstantiated, and devoid of credible evidence. The issuance of repeated emails and the IP caution notice and it will cast serious and unwarranted aspersions on the plaintiff's integrity and compliance standards, it causes e grave reputational harm to the plaintiff company; and create an atmosphere of undue pressure and coercion. The defendant's conduct, based on 9 O.S.No.5808/2025 vague and unverified claims, is likely to disrupt the normal business operations of the plaintiff and it affects its commercial credibility and goodwill and result in irreparable loss and hardship. Therefore, plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant.
8. Though suit summons is served upon the defendant, it has not appeared and contested the suit. Hence, defendant has been placed exparte.
9. Authorized representative of plaintiff company himself examined as PW-1 and got marked as Ex.P1 to P12 and closed the evidence.
10. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the evidence on record.
11. Points arise for my consideration are under:
1. Whether plaintiff proves that it has not engaged in any unauthorized use of AutoCAD software alleged by the defendant company?10
O.S.No.5808/2025
2. Whether plaintiff proves that it has received emails from defendant company making allegations and a warning of imminent escalation, even though plaintiff Company is not using Auto Desk software as alleged by the defendant?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed in the suit?
4. What order or decree?
12. My findings on the above points are as under.
Point No.1: In the "Affirmative"
Point No.2: In the "Affirmative"
Point No.3: In the "Affirmative"
Point No.4: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
13. Point No.1 and 2: PW-1, who is one of the partners of the Plaintiff firm and authorized representative has produced the board resolution as per ExP-1. He has stated that Plaintiff 11 O.S.No.5808/2025 Company was first communicated by the defendant company through email dated 4-7-2025, stating that Plaintiff Company has been selected to undergo software audit to evaluate the usage of defendant company's Auto Desk software and it has received another email dated 07-07-2025 from defendant company, urging the Plaintiff Company to address the matter urgently to avoid potential consequences, as per ExP-3. It is further stated by him that, on 08-07-2025, defendant company sent emails stating that it is sharing partial data for reference of the defendant company, and on the same day, another email was sent alleging presence of unauthorized software installations on systems of the plaintiff company, bearing identifiers, Vijay Kumar, Prashant PC, and Venus PC, without any direct evidence linking these systems or users to the plaintiff company, and it merely shared generic motion names and login credentials, asserting without any proof that they belonged to Venus Industries, and said email communication is marked as Ex.P4.
12
O.S.No.5808/2025
14. It is further stated by him that plaintiff company received another email on 10.07.2025 from defendant company, asking for the plaintiff to revert and stated that timely input from the plaintiff company and would avoid further escalation which is marked as Ex.P5. On 11.7.2025, plaintiff company received four successive email messages from defendant company with allegations and warning of imminent escalation due to Lack of co-operation and communications from the legal representatives Jyotwana Associates who attempted to call and emailed the plaintiff company two times, including messages, stating that the defendant company had no option but to escalate the matter legally, as per Ex.P6. It is further stated that on 14-07-2025, another email was sent to the plaintiff company, stating that multiple attempts were made to contact plaintiff company and due to lack of co-operation from plaintiff, that there is no other option to escalate the matter at hand, as per Ex.P7.
15. The plaintiff has replied on 15.07.2025 denying the allegations and stating that it is a small-scale enterprise 13 O.S.No.5808/2025 engaged in automotive assembly and testing and does not require or use Autodesk software. Despite such denial, the defendant continued to issue emails as per Ex.P9 to Ex.P11 including a legal notice through its representatives, threatening action under the Copyright Act.
16. The defendant has not produced any material before this Court to substantiate its allegations of unauthorized use of software by the plaintiff. The emails relied upon by the plaintiff themselves show that the defendant's allegations are based on unverified and generic data without specific proof.
17. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the testimony of PW-1 and the documents produced by the plaintiff remain uncontroverted and credible.
18. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has successfully established that it has not engaged in unauthorized use of Autodesk software and that the defendant has made allegations and issued threatening communications without substantiating the same. Hence, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the Affirmative. 14
O.S.No.5808/2025
19. Point No.3: In view of the above findings, the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the suit. Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered in the Affirmative.
20. Point No.4: For the reasons discussed above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed.
It is hereby declared that the plaintiff company has not engaged in any unauthorized use of AutoCAD/Autodesk software as alleged by the defendant company.
Decree of permanent injunction is
granted restraining the defendant
company, its agents, representatives, or anybody claiming through or under it from making further false allegations or issuing threats of legal action against the plaintiff company concerning alleged unauthorized use of Autodesk software, without lawful basis.15
O.S.No.5808/2025 There shall be no order as to costs. Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed and computerized by her, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 24th day of April, 2026) (GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI) VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City.
AN NEXURE
1. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff/s P.W.1 : Sri.Raghunandan Prasad
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of Plaintiff/s Ex.P.1 : Authorization letter Ex.P.2 : Email letter dated 04-07-2025 Ex.P.3 : Email letter dated 28-07-2025 Ex.P.4 : Email letter dated 07-07-2025 Ex.P.5 : Email letter dated 28-07-2025 Ex.P.6 : Email letter dated 11-07-2025 Ex.P.7 : 3 Email letters dated 28-07-2025 to Ex.P.9 Ex.P.10 : Email IP caution notice Ex.P.11 : Caution notice dated 24-07-2025 Ex.P.12 : Certificate under Section 63 of BSA 16 O.S.No.5808/2025
3. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Defendant/s : - Nil -
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of Defendant/s : - Nil -
VI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City.