The Foundry Visionmongers Limited vs Twenty Four Frames Factory Private ... on 18 May, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

The Foundry Visionmongers Limited vs Twenty Four Frames Factory Private ... on 18 May, 2022

Bench: Prathiba M. Singh

                                                          Signature Not Verified
                                                          Digitally Signed
                                                          By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
                                                          Signing Date:20.05.2022
                                                          18:06:38


$~2
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                CS(COMM) 168/2022 & I.A. 7801/2022
      THE FOUNDRY VISIONMONGERS LIMITED          ..... Plaintiff
                   Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Imon Roy,
                            Mr. Apoorv Bansal, Advocates
                            (M:8210095739)
                   versus

      TWENTY FOUR FRAMES FACTORY PRIVATE
      LIMITED & ANR.                              ..... Defendants
                    Through: Mr. R.V. Yogesh, Ms. Twinkle Rathi,
                               Advocates
      CORAM:
      JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
                    ORDER

% 18.05.2022

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. I.A. 7801/2022 in CS(COMM)-168/2022

2. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction for the protection of its rights in the computer software programs which are known by the names 'NUKE', 'NUKE X', 'NUKE STUDIO' and 'NUKE RENDER'. The said software programs are used for the purpose of visual effects (VFX) in animation, gaming, graphic designs etc. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendants were ex-licensees of the Plaintiff. The maintenance of Defendants' licensees expired on 23rd August, 2020. However, the Plaintiff got to know that the Defendants continued to use the said software by using pirated/unauthorized version of the Plaintiff's software. An ex parte ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the Plaintiff vide order dated 16th March, 2022 in the following terms:

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:20.05.2022 18:06:38

15. The Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte injunction. It is clear that software programs are protectable under the Copyright law as literary works under section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, 1957. No person would be entitled to use pirated versions of the software, especially such specialized softwares as that of the Plaintiff. The mala fides of the Defendants are also evident from the fact that the Defendants themselves were licensees of the Plaintiffs software program earlier.

16. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the Defendants and all other 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', 'NUKE STUDIO' and 'NUKE RENDER' and any other versions of the same developed by the Plaintiff.

3. The parties have settled their disputes and an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC has been jointly moved by the parties. The settlement terms are contained in paragraphs 1 (a) to (f) of the settlement application. As per the said application, the Defendants have acknowledged the intellectual property rights of the Plaintiff in the 'NUKE', 'NUKE X', 'NUKE STUDIO' software programs. The Defendants have also obtained licences for the Plaintiff's software 'NUKE'. Details of the software licenses and the purchase orders have been placed on record. Payment in terms of the delivery schedule, as agreed upon between the parties, is stated to have been made by means of post-dated cheques. The Defendants undertake before the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:20.05.2022 18:06:38 Court that the said cheques would be honoured.

4. The Court has perused the settlement terms and the same are lawful. In the opinion of the Court, there is no impediment in recording the settlement. All parties and anyone acting for or on their behalf shall be bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement. The application is signed on behalf of the authorized signatories of the parties and their counsels.

5. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in terms of Paragraphs 1(a) to (f) of the settlement agreement. The said terms shall form part of the decree. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. All pending applications are also disposed of.

6. No order as to costs.

7. Next date of hearing before the Joint Registrar as also before the Court is cancelled.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

MAY 18, 2022/aman/Sk

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders