The Foundry Vision Mongers Limited vs Maya Digital Studios Private Limited & ... on 1 April, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

The Foundry Vision Mongers Limited vs Maya Digital Studios Private Limited & ... on 1 April, 2022

Bench: Prathiba M. Singh

                                                          Signature Not Verified
                                                          Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
                                                          Signing Date:03.04.2022
                                                          13:56:26



$~11
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+          CS(COMM) 201/2022 & I.As. 5069-71/2022
     THE FOUNDRY VISION MONGERS LIMITED           ..... Plaintiff
                  Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Shantanu
                            Sahay, Mr. Deepesh Bhardwaj, Ms.
                            Imon Roy & Mr. Aproov Bansal,
                            Advocates.
                  versus

      MAYA DIGITAL STUDIOS PRIVATE LIMITED &
      ORS.                                   ..... Defendants
                     Through: None.
      CORAM:
      JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
               ORDER

% 01.04.2022

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

I.A. 5071/2022 (for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

3. I.A. 5071/2022 is disposed of.

I.A. 5070/2022 (u/O XII Rule 1(4) CPC)

4. This is an application filed on behalf of the Plaintiff seeking leave to file additional documents. The additional documents shall be filed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

5. I.A.5070/2022 is allowed in the above terms and disposed of. CS(COMM) 201/2022

6. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

7. Issue summons to the Defendants through all modes, upon filing of Process Fee.

8. The summons to the Defendants shall indicate that a written statement CS(COMM) 201/2022 Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:03.04.2022 13:56:26 to the plaint shall be positively filed within 30 days from date of receipt of summons. Along with the written statement, the Defendants shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the Plaintiff, without which the written statement shall not be taken on record.

9. Liberty is given to the Plaintiff to file a replication within 15 days of the receipt of the written statement(s). Along with the replication, if any, filed by the Plaintiff, an affidavit of admission/denial of documents of the Defendants, be filed by the Plaintiff, without which the replication shall not be taken on record. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.

10. List before the Joint Registrar for marking of exhibits on 24 th May, 2022. It is made clear that any party unjustifiably denying documents would be liable to be burdened with costs.

11. List before Court on 8th August, 2022.

I.A. 5069/2022 (u/O XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)

12. The Plaintiff - The Foundry Visionmongers Limited, has filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the infringement of copyright, rendition of accounts of profit, damages, etc. The case of the Plaintiff is that it is the owner of the copyright in the computer software known by the names 'NUKE', 'NUKE X', 'NUKE STUDIO' and 'NUKE RENDER'. The further pleaded case of the Plaintiff is that these software programs are used for the purpose of visual effects (VFX) and by industry segments including the animation, architectural engineering, construction, gaming, graphic designs, etc. Plaintiff's software constitutes literary work under the Copyright Act, 1957 and their software programs have also been registered under the relevant provisions of the U.S. Copyright laws.

CS(COMM) 201/2022 Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:03.04.2022 13:56:26

13. Mr. Anand, ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the Defendants had previously purchased four floating interactive annual renewal licenses of Plaintiff's Mari software, the maintenance of which expired on 18th April, 2018. They had also purchased five rental licenses of 'NUKE' software, the maintenance of which is likely to expire on 30 th November, 2022. The Defendants have also failed to pay the rental amounts towards the NUKE and MARI rental licenses. However, due to the security mechanism that is installed in the software, the Plaintiff learnt that the unauthorized version of the Plaintiff's software had been used by the Defendants. The Defendants have 30 computer systems in their facility in Hyderabad and various instances of infringement have been reported for using the infringing software on the said systems. The manner in which the infringement is detected has been explained in the plaint. He, thus, submits that this is a case where the Defendants are indulging in complete piracy of the Plaintiff's software. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has utilized "phone home"

technology built into the said software for tracing instances of infringement. When the Plaintiff conducted a comprehensive check into its internal infringement database, a report was generated on 24th March, 2022 revealing that Defendants are making an unauthorised use of infringing versions of Plaintiff's software programs on at least 30 computer systems. The IP addresses of 30 systems have also been mentioned in paragraph 40 of the plaint.

14. A perusal of the record shows that the Defendant, being the licensees of some licences of the Plaintiff's software programs, are well aware of the fact that the misuse of the Plaintiff's software on various systems of the Defendant without purchasing licenses, would be violative of the provisions CS(COMM) 201/2022 Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:03.04.2022 13:56:26 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Plaintiff's software programs are clearly protectable under the under Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, 1957, as per which computer programs are entitled to copyright protection. Thus, the use of pirated versions of a software program, especially specialized software with the knowledge of the Plaintiff's exclusive rights in the said software, is illegal and unlawful.

15. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the Defendants and all others acting for or on their behalf, are restrained from copying, reproducing, storing, installing and/or using pirated/unlicensed software program of the Plaintiff, namely, 'NUKE', 'NUKE X', and 'NUKE STUDIO', and any other versions of the same, developed by the Plaintiff.

16. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be made within one week.

17. Reply to the application be filed within four weeks from service of the present order, along with the paper-book.

18. List before the Court for hearing, on 8th August, 2022.

19. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as the certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of orders shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

APRIL 1, 2022 Rahul/AD CS(COMM) 201/2022 Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders