Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: pirated software in Sap Se vs Bharath Trainings on 21 December, 2023Matching Fragments
SAP ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning); SAP CRM (Customer Relationship Management); SAP PLM (Product Lifecycle Management); SAP SCM (Supply Chain Management);
SAP SRM (Supplier Relationship Management).
3. It is averred that around January 2018, plaintiff became aware of the illegal and unauthorized activities of the defendants who were operating in connivance with each other and offering unauthorized SAP trainings on various Technical and Functional modules like SAP ABAP, SAP HANA, SAP BASIS, SAP SECURITY, SAP FICO, SAP IS Retail using pirated SAP software without having entered into any Education license agreement or license with the Plaintiff. Furthermore, defendants were indiscriminately using SAP trademark on their interactive website CS (COMM) 329/2019 Dt. 21.12.2023 pg. 2 of 9 SAP SE Vs. Bharth Training an Anr.
Therefore, plaintiff made attempts to contact the Defendants, however, defendants could not be contacted and their website became inactive during the month of May and June. Though, in the last week of June the plaintiff came to know that the defendants have resumed their business. The conduct of the defendant of using unauthorised SAP trainings, distribution of SAP materials and of pirated software clearly shows intention to defraud, and take advantage of the reputation and goodwill of SAP brand and its business reputation.
8. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff submitted that from the pleading and the testimony of the PW-1 is cleared that the defendants were offering unauthorized SAP trainings on various technical and functional modules like SAP ABAP, SAP HANA, SAP BASIS, SAP SECURITY, SAP FICO, SAP IS Retail using pirated SAP software without having entered into any Education license agreement or license with the Plaintiff. The Defendants were indiscriminately using SAP trademark on their interactive website www.bharathtrainings.com wherein they claimed to be providing both online and classroom training in respect of all SAP Modules with remote SAP Server Access. The online business of the Defendants which utilized various tools such as its interactive website, webinars, cloud platforms, social media profiles to carry on its business activities of providing SAP online and/or classroom training/s using pirated software/materials was without authorization from the Plaintiff. The same is evident from online extracts from the Defendant's website which are already filed in the list of documents filed along with the plaint by the Plaintiff.
9. Therefore, plaintiff has proved that they are the prior SAP user and proprietor of the trademark 'SAP logo has become a renowned name for CS (COMM) 329/2019 Dt. 21.12.2023 pg. 6 of 9 SAP SE Vs. Bharth Training an Anr.
the consumers and trade alike, worldwide. It is apparent that trade mark SAP has attained the status of a well-known mark across the globe and hence is equally protected across all the classes of goods and services as listed in the Nice Classification of Goods and Services. The trade mark SAP has high degree of inherent distinctiveness denoting the services of the Plaintiff only; has been used extensively over a long period of time and spanning a wide geographical area including in India; has been given tremendous publicity and attained immense popularity; it is well recognized by members of the trade and public. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to protection against its misappropriation for goods or services whether similar or different in nature to those of the Plaintiff. Resultantly, the brand and name "SAP" has built up an immense value for itself and thus qualifies for enhanced protection as a 'well-known mark' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg) read with Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Plaintiff has the exclusive right over the mark SAP, its logo and other formative marks along with the copyrighted software. The adoption and use of an identical mark/logo without authorization of the Plaintiff would amount to infringement of Plaintiff's statutory right as per Section 29(1) and (2) of the Trade Marks Act. Further the Defendant providing remote access of pirated software to train students and to end users clearly amounts to unauthorized reproduction along with primary infringement of copyright as per Section 55 of the Copyright Act. Accordingly, the present suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants as prayed.