Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. The appellants contended that MapMyAccess (for short MMA) was developed by M/s. NowFloats Technologies Pvt., Ltd., where appellant No.2 had paid money for valuable consideration. Plaintiff has not made out any ground for grant of injunction. There is no balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, but the balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellants/defendants. Plaintiff has failed to prove any irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted. The cause of action shown is more than 13 months. The plaintiff has sought damages in this suit also. All the allegations of plaintiff are false. The conduct of the plaintiff disentitle him to seek for discretionary relief. It is contended that the Trial Court failed to consider the objection filed by the defendants and documents produced by them. The Trial Court has not considered the contention of the appellants that there are no documents to show any ownership or proprietary rights in the alleged technical know-how, trade secrets, invention and processes in relation to 'RemotLog' software. There is no prima-facie material to establish as to how 'MapMyAccess' software, its source code, object code, executable code is same as that of RemotLog. Simply because the defendants are in the same field of education sector, that does not mean that there is infringement of any right of the plaintiff. Already there are multiple players in the market in the field of Remot Access digital library, the plaintiff has no monopoly in the education sector. Therefore, the appellants prayed to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal as prayed.

25. It is not in dispute that the appellants-defendants are marketing the software called 'MapMyAccess'. Said software enables remote access to online resources. The plaintiff is also marketing online resource software through 'RemotLog'. As evident from the plaint, said software was made by M/s. NTPL. The plaintiff's software is based on the information which was publicly available from the free softwares such as EzProxy, RemoteXS, Shibboleth and other competitors. M/s. NTPL owns Kitsune Proxy and it provides service to several clients. Kitsune Proxy is based on open- source code and also used other open-source based software of other competitors such as Ezproxy, RemoteXS in order to create RemotLog. It is evident from the documents produced before the court that RemotLog was created by using other open-source code software. Same is evident from the documents filed alongwith Statement of Work(SoW) in respect of Remote Access Solution. The team is shown as Team Kitsune and plaintiff's software was prepared by M/s. NTPL. It is also evident from the Document 8 produced at Volume 1 that any request to Kitsune Proxy and content server will be secured and encrypted with SSL. The Document No.8 of plaint at Page 160 also shows that the contents referred in the said document is verbatim obtained from website Ezproxy. Therefore, the entire remote access solution of the plaintiff is based on Kitsune proxy server of M/s. NTPL. The document indicates that the information recorded in SoW is not confidential information, but the same is obtained from the public information website such as websites of EzProxy. As it is evident that RemoteLog is based on open-source code and public information which is also created by M/s. NTPL, therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that the confidentiality of the plaintiff's software was infringed by the defendants has no basis at all.

26. In order to appreciate the same, it is necessary to look into the contentions of the appellants/defendants and their software. The appellants' "MapMyAccess" software is developed by same M/s. NTPL. It is also evident that appellant No.1 has paid Rs.21,24,000/ in order to prepare the said software, the source code, object code and all deliverables. It is also evident that MapMyAccess was created by third-party vendor M/s. NTPL, as evident in the SoW issued by defendant No.2 by using Kitsune proxy which is again an open-source code. It is evident that the plaintiff and defendants' software have some similar objects of providing remote access to online resource.

37. It is not the allegation that defendant Nos.1 and 3 have copied the software or source code of plaintiff and took it away and used in preparation of software of defendant No.2 'MapMyAccess'. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellants, source code is not a short formula and it cannot be memorized by defendant Nos.1 and 3. Said documents runs to several pages. If at all defendant Nos.1 and 3 have copied or used source code, then there is no necessity for the defendants to have contract to the tune of Rs.21,24,000/- with M/s. NTPL to develop their software. The plaintiff has to show before the court as to how the design and structure of both the softwares, source code and wish list of the defendants' software are based on the information given by defendant Nos.1 and 3. Simply because, there is similarity in the business, no injunction can be granted casually without going into details of the documents placed, as to how the similarity has affected or infringed the plaintiff's alleged copyright or intellectual property right.