Bangalore District Court
Unikul Solutions Pvt Ltd vs Corporate Serve Solutions Pvt on 3 December, 2022
KABC010342522019
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 3 rd day of December 2022
PLAINTIFF: Unikul Solutions Pvt Ltd.,
(A Company registered under
the Companies Act, 1956)
Having its Registered Office at:
Bateswar Road, P.O.Motiganj,
District Balasore, Orissa.
And having its Branch Office at:
No. 62/63, Venkatadri Layout,
J.P.Nagar 6th Phase,
Bangalore-560 078,
Represented by its Director and
Duly Authorised Signatory:
Sri Pulakesh Sen,
Aged about 46 years,
S/o Sri Amaresh Sen.
[By Sri Shyam Sunder Bajpekar, Advocate]
/v e r s u s/
DEFENDANTS: 1. Corporate Serve Solutions Pvt.
Ltd., 408, Udyog Vihar, Phase-
IV, Sector 18, Gurgaon,
2 O.S._8074_2019_Judgment_.doc
Haryana-122015, INDIA
Rep by its CEO and Director
Sri Vinay Vohra, Aged Major,
Father's name not known.
2. Corporate Serve Technologies
Pvt. Ltd., L-102, Ambience
Island, NH-8, Gurgaon,
Haryana-122002, INDIA
Rep. By its CEO and Director
Sir Vinay Vohra, Aged major,
Father's name not known.
[By Sri CSN, Advocate]
Date of institution of the : 11/11/2019
suit
Nature of the suit : For INJUNCTION.
Date of commencement of : 26/10/2021
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 3/12/2022
Judgment was
pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
3 - 23
(PADMA PRASAD)
XVIII ACCJ: B'LURU.
This is a suit for permanent injunction.
2. The plaintiff's case in nutshell is that,
plaintiff is a company incorporated in the year 2009,
and he is involved in providing specialized innovative
3 O.S._8074_2019_Judgment_.doc
Student Life Cycle Management system to its clients
in India and abroad related to niche technical services
to implement and run the software at the client's
premises and location. The plaintiff company provides
software solutions that creates, builds, maintains,
specialized innovative student life cycle management
i.e., built and developed using the components of a
software technology platform called enterprises
resource planning. The plaintiff company is in the
business of development and distribution of student
life cycle management solutions being the exclusive
software for the education sector hereinafter called
'Campus Dynamix'. The defendants are the rival
companies in the same business of re-selling and
distributing "Microsoft Dynamics Navision" ERP
software. The plaintiff is an exclusively registered
product 'Campus Dynamix' with Microsoft and uses
the Microsoft Dynamics Navision ERP technology
platform and the ASP.net technology platform which
are exclusively owned by Microsoft. The plaintiff has
been instrumental in the development of the software
4 O.S._8074_2019_Judgment_.doc
product 'Campus Dynamix'. The plaintiff also given
the particulars of the functioning of 'Campus
Dynamix' in the pleading and also the screen shot of
the said page. The 'Campus Dynamix' is used by
some of the leading educational institutions to run
their finance, operations and provide excellent
experience to students and faculty. The innovation of
specialized software programs, modules and its
corresponding components and code is unique and is
recognised by Microsoft because of which Microsoft
has accepted the 'Campus Dynamix' software as a
independent software vendor solution, one among 40
ISD solutions i.e., globally recognised and accepted by
Microsoft. The plaintiff claims that it has registered its
product 'Campus Dynamix' with Microsoft company
in December 2014 under the registered solution
program addendum with a Registered Solution Id
-41448 and a Registered Solution Name
33065460CDx. The said license renewed every two
years. It is also claimed that email dated 5/6/2015
and 30/9/2018 sent by Microsoft acknowledging the
5 O.S._8074_2019_Judgment_.doc
completion of Registered Solution Program
Addendum. Thus, the plaintiff company is the
exclusive licensee and owner of intellectual property
called 'Campus Dynamix'. The defendants are also
in the business of providing ERP based software
service to various customers and defendants used to
earlier provide services to two particular customers
namely MAHE Manipal and Manipal University,
Jaipur. As the said two institutions were not satisfied
with the service of defendant, they have approached
the plaintiff company to revamp and overall their
software systems and install the plaintiff's company's
'Campus Dynamix' software. The plaintiff claimed
that when the plaintiff started work on the project of
MAHE in April 2018, to their shock and surprise
found that SLCM Software and the various
components in the Microsoft Dynamics Navision ERP
system was a stolen and copied version of the plaintiff
company's software 'Campus Dynamix'. The
plaintiff checked several areas of the code,
components etc., and found complete similarities with
6 O.S._8074_2019_Judgment_.doc
the plaintiff company's own software 'Campus
Dynamix'. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed that the
defendants had installed a deceptively similar
software that wholly resembled the source code of the
plaintiff company's 'Campus Dynamix' software
which is the intellectual property of plaintiff that has
been actually pirated and used therein by the
defendants. The defendant has neither taken
permission from the plaintiff-company nor consulted
the plaintiff-company while using the source code in
the objects of 'Campus Dynamix' software solution
product which is clear violation of the intellectual
property rights. Accordingly the plaintiff claimed that
the defendants have infringed the Copyright of
plaintiff and also stolen the source code of plaintiff.
Accordingly prayed for the relief claimed in the plaint.
3. The defence of the defendants in the written
statement in nutshell is that, this court has no
territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiff
approached the court with unclean hands. The
defendant company incorporated on 17/7/2004
7 O.S._8074_2019_Judgment_.doc
which is prior to the incorporation of plaintiff. The
defendant specifically claimed that it has its own
product namely EduClass or Education Vertical or
student life cycle management one and the same word
that provides software solution to the educational
institutions, schools, colleges and universities. The
said software duly registered on 21/5/2012 with
Microsoft prior to the plaintiff. The defendant further
claimed that the registration number of the defendant
is 33048920, whereas the number of the plaintiff is
33065460 that also shows that the registration of
defendant's software with the Microsoft is earlier than
the plaintiff. All other allegations in the plaint has
been categorically denied by the defendant and
specifically claimed that the source code claimed by
the plaintiff has not at all stolen or pirated by the
defendants, and the defendants are the prior user of
the source code and also they have got registered their
software with the Microsoft earlier than the plaintiff.
Accordingly prayed for dismissal of suit.
8 O.S._8074_2019_Judgment_.doc
4. On the basis of above pleading the court
framed following issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that they
are the copyright owner and
registered licensee of the software
"CAMPUS" DYNAMIX?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the
defendants have infringed the
copyright of 'Campus Dynamix'
software source code of the plaintiff?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
the decree of permanent injunction as
sought for?
(4) What order or decree?
5. Plaintiff in order to prove its case, examined
its CEO as PW.1 and got marked documents as per
Ex.P1 to Ex.P23. On the other hand, CEO and
Director of the defendant company is examined as
DW.1 and got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D5.
6. Heard the arguments and perused entire
records of the case.
7. My findings on the above issues are as
under:
Issue No. 1) ............In the affirmative;
Issue No. 2) ............In the negative;
9 O.S._8074_2019_Judgment_.doc
Issue No. 3) ............In the negative;
Issue No. 4) ............As per final order for
the following:
8. ISSUE NO.1 AND 2: In this case, the
prayer claimed by the plaintiff in the suit is to restrain
the defendants or anybody claiming under them from
manufacturing, selling, distributing, advertising,
exporting, offering for sale, procuring, using,
accessing and dealing in any way whatsoever with the
'Campus Dynamix' software technology solution
product to third parties or their clients which is
exclusively intellectual property belongs to the
plaintiff.
9. The said fact has been totally disputed and
denied by the defendant claiming that the defendants
are not at all using any software claimed by the
plaintiff particularly 'Campus Dynamix' with the
specific claim that they are the prior user, prior
registered owner as well as prior seller of the software
10 O.S._8074_2019_Judgment_.doc
of the defendants called EduClass which is identical
to the services provided or traded by the plaintiff.
10. On the basis of pleadings, the court framed
four issues in the suit. The first issue is regarding the
proving of the fact that the plaintiff is the Copyright
owner and registered licensee of the software
'Campus Dynamix'. The second issue framed in the
suit regarding the claim of plaintiff that the
defendants have infringed the Copyright of 'Campus
Dynamix' software, source code of the plaintiff.
These two issues are inter-linked with each other and
the plaintiff has to prove that the plaintiff is the owner
and registered licensee of the software 'Campus
Dynamix'. Most importantly the plaintiff has to prove
that the defendant has copied or infringed the said
'Campus Dynamix' software as of its products.
11. In this case the plaintiff in support of its
case examined authorised signatory Pulakesh Sen as
PW.1 by filing the evidence affidavit wherein he stated
in consonance with the petition case. The plaintiff
11 O.S._8074_2019_Judgment_.doc
produced the Board resolution to show that PW.1 is
the authorized person to prosecute the suit. If the
entire evidence is taken, certainly the authorization of
PW.1 to prosecute the case is not much in issue, and
infact that has been admitted. Hence PW.1 is the
proper person to prosecute the case.
12. The plaintiff in order to prove its case,
relied on a documentary evidence at Ex.P2 to Ex.P23.
Ex.P2 is the copy of Microsoft Dynamics Sales Affiliate
agreement dated 8/6/2017. Ex.P3 to 5, Ex.P7 and
Ex.P16 are the emails. Ex.P6 is the copy of Registered
Solution Program Addendum (RSPA). Ex.P8 is the
screen shot of Microsoft Partners Source Portal. Ex.P9
is the purchase order of MAHE (Manipal). Ex.P10 is
the letter issued by the Birla Education Trust BITS
Pilani dated 13/5/2014. Ex.P11 and Ex.P2 ares the
testimonial letters dated 23/4/2014 and 23/6/2017
respectively; Ex.P13 and Ex.P15 are is the purchase
order dated 16/7/2018 and 29/1/2014 respectively;
Ex.P14 is the testimonial email by Rosary School LLC;
Ex.P16 is the Email Invoice dated 21/02/2014; and
12 O.S._8074_2019_Judgment_.doc
Ex.P17 to Ex.P23 are the screen shots of Source
Codes.
13. The defendants in support of its defence,
examined CEO and Director of defendant as DW.1 and
he stated in consonance with his defence in the
written statement, and also relied on the documents
at Ex.D1 to Ex.D5. Ex.D1 is the certified copy of the
Board resolution authorising the DW.1 to defend the
case. Ex.D2 is the printout copy of the application to
Microsoft by the defendant; Ex.D3 is the printout of
the approval by Microsoft; Ex.D4 is the printout copy
of the screen shot of the source code; Ex.D5 is the
affidavit filed under Section 65-B of Evidence Act in
respect of Ex.D2 to Ex.D4.
14. In the case on hand, the dispute between
the parties regarding the use of source code for
respective softwares of the parties, the plaintiff claims
that 'Campus Dynamix' is the plaintiff's software
and the defendant has copied / pirated the source
code of 'Campus Dynamix' for their software
13 O.S._8074_2019_Judgment_.doc
EduClass or Education Vertical or Student Life Cycle
Management. The defendant put forth a definite
defence that the defendant company has been
incorporated prior to the plaintiff company and they
have obtained the Copyright of their software prior to
the plaintiff, and also the claim of the defendant is
that there are many identical softwares in the market,
as such the plaintiff cannot claim right over the
software. The definite defence of the defendant is that
the defendant not at all stolen or pirated the source
code of plaintiff, inter alia claiming that it is the
plaintiff stolen the source code of defendant.
15. Admittedly as per the pleading of plaintiff in
para 2A of the plaint, the plaintiff company was
incorporated in the year 2009. As per the defence, the
defendant company has been incorporated as on
17/7/2004. This fact has not been disputed by the
plaintiff. Therefore, it has to be accepted that the
defendant company has been incorporated atleast 5
years prior to the incorporation of plaintiff.
14 O.S._8074_2019_Judgment_.doc
16. The plaintiff in the plaint nowhere claimed
that in which year and from what date the plaintiff is
using the 'Campus Dynamix' software, but it is only
stated in the plaint para no.7 and 8 that the plaintiff
company registered the product - 'Campus Dynamix'
with Microsoft company in the year 2014 bearing
Registered Solution ID - 41448 and a Registered
Solution Name 33065460-CDx. Of course that has
been renewed. Whatever the contention of the
plaintiff, it has to be accepted that the software of the
plaintiff namely 'Campus Dynamix' has been either
affiliated to Microsoft or registered with the Microsoft
in the month of December 2014. It is true that the
PW.1 during the course of cross-examination claimed
that the software has been developed since 2009, but
there is no material on record whatsoever to
substantiate the said fact so that the court can accept
that the plaintiff is using the 'Campus Dynamix'
software since 2009.
17. The definite case of the defendant in the
written statement as well as during the course of
15 O.S._8074_2019_Judgment_.doc
evidence that the defendant has obtained the
registration of his product EduClass in the year 2012,
particularly claimed that it has been registered on
21/5/2012. The document produced by the defendant
at Ex.D2 and Ex.D3 certainly substantiate the said
fact. Therefore, material on record sufficiently disclose
that it is the defendant is using his software prior to
the plaintiff's software 'Campus Dynamix'.
18. Admittedly the dispute between the parties
regarding the theft of source code for the respective
software. In the case on hand, the plaintiff and
defendants have filed the screen shots of the
defendant's software. All the documents produced by
the plaintiff at Ex.P17 to Ex.P23 as well as Ex.D4
reveals that the source code is of the year 2009.
Admittedly, the plaintiff company has been
incorporated in the year 2009 and it has obtained the
registration in the year 2014. Absolutely there is no
material whatsoever on record to show that 'Campus
Dynamix' has been either invented or created in the
year 2009. In the case on hand, the plaintiff claimed
16 O.S._8074_2019_Judgment_.doc
that he had so many reputed clients in the
educational institutions and the plaintiff is serving the
said institution since long time. If it were so, the
plaintiff would have easily produced some documents
to show the use of 'Campus Dynamix' atleast prior
to the registration of defendant's software in the year
2012. Absolutely there is no material whatsoever on
record to show that the plaintiff has installed the
'Campus Dynamix' to any of its clients prior to the
registration of software of the defendant in the year
2012. Therefore, there is no material on record to
show that the defendant is using the source code of
plaintiff for its software EduClass.
19. In view of the aforesaid oral and
documentary evidence along with the pleadings
sufficiently shows that the plaintiff is the registered
licensee of the software 'Campus Dynamix'. The
plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendants have
infringed the Copyright of 'Campus Dynamix'
software source code of the plaintiff to their software
EduClass or Educational Vertical or Student Life
17 O.S._8074_2019_Judgment_.doc
Cycle. Accordingly, the above Issue No.1 is answered
in affirmative, Issue No.2 is answered in negative.
20. ISSUE NO.3: In view of the finding on
Issue No.2 that the plaintiff failed to prove the
infringement of Copyright by the defendant, certainly
the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed in the
suit. Accordingly this issue is answered in negative.
21. ISSUE NO.4: In view of my finding on the
above issues, I proceed to pass the following:
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby
dismissed.
Considering the peculiar
circumstances of the case, there is no
order as to costs.
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 3 rd day of December 2022.] [PADMA PRASAD] XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.
18 O.S._8074_2019_Judgment_.doc
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
PW.1 Pulakesh Sen
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
DW.1 Vinay Vohra
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P.1 Board Resolution dated 20/10/2019. Ex.P2 Copy of the "Microsoft Dynamics Sales Affiliate" agreement. Ex.P3 Email dated 23/12/2014 Ex.P4 Email dated 05/01/2015. Ex.P5 Email dated 30/09/2018. Ex.P6 Copy of the Registered Solution Program Addendum (RSPA).
Ex.P7 Email dated 20/03/2017. Ex.P8 Screen shot of Microsoft Partner Source Portal.
Ex.P9 Purchase Order of MAHE (Manipal). Ex.P10 Letter issued by Birla Education Trust BITS Pilani dated 13/05/2014. Ex.P11 Testimonial Letter dated 23/04/2014. Ex.P12 Testimonial Letter dated 23/06/2017. 19 O.S._8074_2019_Judgment_.doc Ex.P13 Purchase Order dated 16/07/2018.
Ex.P14 Testimonial Email by Rosary School LLC.
Ex.P15 Purchase order dated 29/1/2014.
Ex.P16 Email Invoice dated 21/02/2014.
Ex.P17 Screen shots of Source Codes ( 7 in
to Nos.)
Ex.P23
4. List of the documents marked for the
defendants:
Ex.D1 Certified copy of the Board
Resolution.
Ex.D2 Printout copy of the application to
Microsoft.
Ex.D3 Printout copy of the approval by
Microsoft.
Ex.D4 Printout copy of screen shots of
Source code.
Ex.D5 Affidavit u/sec. 65-B of Evidence
Act in support of Ex.D2 to Ex.D4.
Digitally signed [PADMA PRASAD] PADMA by PADMA PRASAD XVIII Additional City Civil Judge. PRASAD Date: 2022.12.03 15:44:49 +0530 BENGALURU.
20 O.S._8074_2019_Judgment_.doc ...Judgment pronounced in the Open Court....
(Vide separate detailed judgment) The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
[PADMA PRASAD] XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.
2 O.S._8074_2019_Judgment_.doc 2 2 O.S._8074_2019_Judgment_.doc 3