Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed the present suit for permanent injunction to restrain copyright and trademark infringement, delivery up and rendition of accounts etc., inter alia, praying that a decree for permanent injunction be passed against the defendant, its principal officers, directors, agents, franchisees, servants and all others acting for and on its behalf from directly or indirectly cracking, copying, reproducing, storing, installing and/or using pirated CATIA software program of plaintiffs and its various versions without licence and/or providing educational, certification courses and/or engineering services in relation thereof, thereby amounting to infringement of copyright in plaintiff no.1's computer programmes/software titles.

4. In another application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code being I.A. No.15133/2008, the court appointed a local commissioner to seize and seal the computers, CPUs, compact discs and other storage media, which were found to contain unlicensed/pirated versions of the plaintiffs‟ softwares and release the same on Superdari to the defendant with a direction to produce the same before this court as and when directed.

5. In compliance with the said order, the local commissioner visited the premises of the defendant on 15.12.2008 and filed his report stating therein that "the software found in the server CPU and one of the hard discs was unlicensed and pirated and the server CPU and the hard discs also had cracks for the purpose of installing the software of the plaintiff company without genuine licences. Two codec CDs of the software of the plaintiff company were also found and three CDs containing pirated software and cracks of the plaintiff company‟s software were seized from the premises of the defendant but the same went missing along with one of the external hard drive and one Pen drive as well."

16. The objections raised by the defendant in the present application are too technical and without any substance. Probably, the plaintiff did not file the process fee because the service had been effected personally. I do not find any merit in this application and the same is dismissed. I.A. No.6824/2009 is disposed of.

17. As regards the injunction application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code, it appears from the report of the local commissioner that Mr. Surana, the defendant‟s Managing Director had agreed during the proceedings when the local commissioner visited the defendant‟s premises that software found in the server CPU and one of the hard discs was unlicensed and pirated and that the server CPU and the hard disc also had cracks for the purpose of installation of the software of the plaintiff company without genuine license.

19. As agreed by the learned counsel for the parties I appoint Mr. Aditya Singla, Adv. (Mobile No.9818601006) to de-seal the computers/CPUs and create back up copies of the hard discs/storage media on new hard discs/storage media provided by the defendant. The unlicensed/pirated software as identified by the representative of the plaintiffs will then be deleted from the new hard discs. The defendants will be at liberty to use the new hard discs along with the seized computers/CPUs. The original hard discs would then be sealed and handed over to the defendants on superdari. The Local Commissioner shall also take one copy of the print of the storage media and file the same alongwith his report. The fee of the Local Commissioner is fixed at Rs.20,000/- excluding actual expenses. The Local Commissioner shall file a report within four weeks from today.