Bangalore District Court
Weatherseal Retail Services vs Dassault Systemes India on 28 February, 2023
KABC010242972022
Form
No.9
(Civil)
Title
Sheet
for PRESENT: SRI PADMA PRASAD
Judgme
B.A.(Law) LL.B.,
XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
Dated this the 28 th day of February 2023
PLAINTIFF: Weatherseal Retail Services
Private Limited
Represented by one of its
Director, Mr. Harish Munireddy,
No. 36/3B, Chikkakanneli,
Sarjapura Road, Bangalore,
Karnataka-560 035.
[By Sri Venkata Raghavan, Advocate]
/v e r s u s/
DEFENDANT: Dassault Systemes India
Private Limited
Represented by its Director
M-13, LGF South Extension
Part -2, New Delhi, South Delhi,
Delhi -110 049.
[Exparte]
Date of institution of the : 7/9/2022
suit
Nature of the suit : For Permanent Injunction (IPR)
Date of commencement of : 10/02/2023
recording of the evidence
2 O.S.5817_2022_Judgment_.doc
Date on which the : 28/2/2023
Judgment was
pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
- 5 21
(PADMA PRASAD)
XVIII ACCJ: B'LURU.
This is a suit for permanent injunction.
2. The plaint case in nutshell is that, plaintiff
is a company incorporated in the year 2018. The
plaintiff is an exporter and importer of products for
power, oil and gas, cement, mining and various
industrial areas for India. The plaintiff company has
increasingly diversified and expanded its operations in
the field of manufacturing and equipment, supplies to
various parts of India. The plaintiff focus on storage
and warehouse solutions that specifically deal with
ASRS, rack systems, vertical carousels and flexible
lifts etc., The plaintiff further claimed that on
26/8/2021, the plaintiff has received email from one
Mr.Ashish Amatya who is the employee of defendant
company stating that there has been an infringement
3 O.S.5817_2022_Judgment_.doc
of the use of a CATIA software owned by the defendant
under the Copyright Act. It is also stated that on
26/8/2021, the plaintiff company instructed its
employee namely Vinay.G to delete the software that
was unintentionally and accidentally installed by him.
Said Vinay.G later on deleted the same. The plaintiff
further claims that inspite of that, the defendants
continued its groundless threats. Hence prayed for the
relief claimed in the suit.
3. Inspite of service of summons, defendant
has not chosen to appear before the court and contest
the case. Therefore, he is placed exparte.
4. On the basis of above, point for
consideration is that - Whether the plaintiff is
entitled for the relief claimed in the suit ?
5. Plaintiff in order to prove its case, examined
its Power of Attorney holder as PW.1 and got marked
documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.
6. The learned advocate for the plaintiff filed
written arguments. Perused the entire records of the
case.
4 O.S.5817_2022_Judgment_.doc
7. My findings on the above point is in the
partly in affirmative; for the following:
8. The definite case made out by the plaintiff
is that it is an importer and exporter of products as
claimed in the plaint. The definite case made out by
the plaintiff is that, one of its employee accidentally
downloaded the CATIA software of defendant and the
said fact came to the notice of plaintiff as per email
communication dated 26/8/2021. Immediately, the
plaintiff asked the said Vinay.G to delete the said
software. Inspite of that, the defendant continued the
groundless threat.
9. The plaintiff in support of its case got
examined General Power of Attorney holder of plaintiff
namely Smt. Lakshmi B.K and produced the
documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are
the special power of attorney and board resolution,
the said documents at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 clearly shows
5 O.S.5817_2022_Judgment_.doc
that PW.1 is properly authorised to prosecute this
case.
10. The plaintiff in support of its case produced
the email issued by Amatya Ashish at Ex.P3 and
Ex.P4 is the email sent by plaintiff to the defendant.
These two documents sufficiently shows that the
defendant has issued the notice and asked the
plaintiff to cease and desist from using the CATIA
software, failure to do so, the defendant will initiate
legal action. Till this date, there is no material on
record to show that the defendant has initiated any
legal action. Under such circumstances, certainly the
defendant is to be restrained from issuing such
groundless threats of legal action as contemplated
under Section 60 of the Copyright Act.
11. This suit is filed on the basis of Section 60
of the Copyright Act which speaks about the
groundless threat. As per the said Section, if anybody
gives the groundless threat, then the plaintiff can file
a suit for permanent injunction against the
6 O.S.5817_2022_Judgment_.doc
continuance of such threat. The documents produced
by the plaintiff at Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 sufficiently disclose
that the defendant has issued a legal notice and
exchange the emails to the plaintiffs not to use the
software belongs to them, and if the plaintiff fails to
do so, they will initiate the legal action. Therefore, the
plaintiff has made out a prima facie case of threat
regarding the initiation of legal action.
12. Now the proviso to Section 60 also to be
considered while entertaining the suit filed on the
basis of Section 60. Whatever the order passed or the
action initiated under Section 60 of the Copyright Act
is the subject to the proviso to Section 60 of the
Copyright Act. Proviso to Section 60 reads as -
"Provided that this Section shall not apply if the
person making such threats with due diligence,
commences and prosecutes an action for
infringement of the Copyright claimed by him." In
view of the above said provision, the court can issue
perpetual injunction against the defendant till he
initiate the proceedings for infringement of Copyright.
7 O.S.5817_2022_Judgment_.doc
Accordingly, the above point is answered partly in
affirmative. In the result, following:
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby
partly decreed with costs.
Consequently, the defendant is
hereby restrained from issuing the
groundless threat as claimed in the
plaint against the plaintiff till the
defendant institute the suit for the
infringement of its Copyright as per
proviso to Section 60 of the Copyright
Act.
Draw decree accordingly.
***
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, Script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 28 th day of February 2023.] [PADMA PRASAD] XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
PW.1 Smt. Lakshmi B.K. 8 O.S.5817_2022_Judgment_.doc
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
NIL.
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 Special Power of Attorney dated 11/1/2023.
Ex.P2 Board Resolution Extract dated 5/8/2022.
Ex.P3 Online printout of Electronic Communication.
Ex.P4 Online printout of Electronic Communication.
Ex.P5 Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act for Ex.P3 and Ex.P4.
4. List of the documents marked for the defendants:
NIL.
Digitally [PADMA PRASAD] signed by PADMA XVIII Additional City Civil Judge. PADMA PRASAD BENGALURU.
PRASAD Date:
2023.02.28
15:52:10
+0530
...Judgment pronounced in the Open Court....
(Vide separate detailed judgment) The suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with costs. Consequently, the defendant is hereby restrained from issuing the groundless threat as claimed in the plaint against the plaintiff till the defendant institute the suit for the infringement of its Copyright as per proviso to Section 60 of the Copyright Act.
Draw decree accordingly.
[PADMA PRASAD] XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.
O.S.5817_2022_Judgment_.doc 1 O.S.5817_2022_Judgment_.doc 1 1 O.S.5817_2022_Judgment_.doc 2