Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

The Foundry Visionmongers Limited vs Twenty Four Frames Factory Private ... on 16 March, 2022

Author: Prathiba M. Singh

Bench: Prathiba M. Singh

                                                             Signature Not Verified
                                                             Digitally Signed
                                                             By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
                                                             Signing Date:22.03.2022
                                                             02:18:39


$~14
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+             CS(COMM) 168/2022 & I.As. 4220-22/2022
      THE FOUNDRY VISIONMONGERS LIMITED           ..... Plaintiff
                   Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Shantanu
                            Sahay, Mr. Depesh Bharadwaj, Ms.
                            Imon Roy & Mr. Apoorv Bansal,
                            Advocates (M-9798483681)
                   versus

      TWENTY FOUR FRAMES FACTORY PRIVATE LIMITED &
      ANR.                              ..... Defendants
                     Through: None.
      CORAM:
      JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
               ORDER

% 16.03.2022

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

I.A. 4222/2022 (for exemption)

2. This is an application seeking exemption from filing certified/cleared or translated copies of documents. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

3. Application is disposed of.

I.A. 4221/2022 (for additional documents)

4. This is an application under Order XI Rule (1) 4 CPC seeking leave to file additional documents under the Commercial Courts, 2015. The Plaintiff, if it wishes to file additional documents at a later stage, shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

5. Application is disposed of.

CS (COMM) 168/2022

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 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 27th April, 2022. It is made clear that any party unjustifiably denying documents would be liable to be burdened with costs.

11. List before Court on 18th July, 2022.

I.A. 4220/2022 (u/O XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)

12. The Plaintiff- The Foundry Visionmongers Limited has filed the present suit of permanent injunction restraining the infringement of copyright, rendition of accounts of profit, damages, etc. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff is the owner of the copyright in the computer software which are known by the name '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 CS(COMM) 168/2022 Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:22.03.2022 02:18:39 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.

13. Mr. Pravin Anand, ld. Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff submits that the Defendants were ex-licensees of the Plaintiff and they had obtained four educational rental licenses of Plaintiff's software programs, the maintenance of which expired on 23rd August 2020. However, Mr. Anand, ld. Counsel submits reports have been received by the Plaintiff which shows that the Defendants continue to use the said software by using pirated/unauthorized versions of Plaintiff's software. He further submits that for the purpose of tracing the infringement that the Defendants are indulging in, the Plaintiff has utilized 'Phone Home' technology by which the Plaintiff is able to trace any infringement of its software, especially in those cases where earlier the parties were using the software program as a licensee. By using the 'Phone Home' technology, a report was generated on 8th February, 2022, which revealed that pirated/unauthorized versions of the Plaintiff's software have been used on 9 computers of the Defendants.

14. The Court has perused the plaint and the investigation report which has been placed on record as also the report generated through the 'Phone Home' technology. The 'Phone Home' shows that there was infringement as per the said report in 2020 and 2021. The way in which the Plaintiff has been able to infringement to the Defendants is also supported due to the appearance of the prefix '24' in some of the domains captured by the 'Phone Home' Technology which as per the Plaintiff is a prefix in respect of all programs which stand for 24 Frames, i.e. the Defendants.

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 Plaintiff's 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.

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

18. Reply to the application be filed within 4 weeks from service of the present order along with the paper book.

19. List the application before court on 18th July, 2022 for hearing.

20. 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.

MARCH 16, 2022 Rahul/SK CS(COMM) 168/2022 Page 4 of 4