Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(hereinafter referred as "The Technical Pamphlet") issued by Research Designs and Standards Organization, Ministry of Railways. It contains the said detailed drawings and this document can easily be procured by making payment of Rs.2300/-. It is submitted that the defendant being in the same trade, aware of such publication and has copied the drawings of the plaintiffs from this document and also procured the plaintiffs' product and spare parts and prepared the drawings for manufacturing the ATL devices and its spare parts, by using reverse engineering and/or by copying and using unauthorizedly the said drawings. The Indian Railways floated the tender dated 17.05.2012 for replacement and repair of the following parts of ATL devices supplied by plaintiffs:-
7. In the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, the same prayer has been made by the plaintiffs. It is submitted that they have a good prima facie case as they have a copyright over the industrial drawings and the balance of convenience also lies in their favour and they shall suffer a loss not only financially but also in their reputation if the injunction is refused which cannot be compensated in terms of the money.
8. The suit as well as the application is contested by the defendant. At the outset, the defendant has submitted that the plaintiffs have no copyright in the industrial drawings. It is submitted that by virtue of Section 15 of Copyright Act, 1957, no copyright exist in any drawing or design once the production has been done more than 50 times by an industrial process using such drawing or design. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have themselves admitted that they have supplied ATL devices to the Railways and thus by CS(COMM) No.1419/2016 Page 5 using drawing they have reproduced more than 50 articles. It is further submitted that under the contract awarded to it by the Indian Railways, it was bound to fulfil its obligation on the basis of specification and drawings mandated in terms of the contract. It is also contended by the defendant that it had never claimed to be manufacturers and supplier of the plaintiff's spare parts. The defendants have to do only those things which it is required to do under the contract awarded by the Indian Railways which is for the repair or replacement of parts of ATL devices. Having lost the tender, the plaintiffs cannot claim to have exclusive rights to repair and replace the ATL devices which belong to Indian Railways. It is denied by the defendant that it has misappropriated the know-how or information, drawings or designs of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also cannot be said to have exclusive intellectual property right over the said drawings since these drawings have been published and are readily available in the market. The defendant is to confine its work under the contract. It is submitted that the components required to be replaced as per the tender awarded are not the components of the plaintiffs. It is submitted that the defendant is neither infringing the copyright nor stealing the drawings of the plaintiffs by using reverse engineering. It is submitted that the quality check of the work carried out by CS(COMM) No.1419/2016 Page 6 the defendant is done by the Indian Railways and their representatives. It is submitted that even before this contract which was awarded to the defendant, the Indian Railways have placed orders on M/s Escorts Ltd, Faridabad, M/s Ad Electrosteel Co. Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata, M/s Buttweld Industries, Kolkata for the repair and maintenance of the same product, i.e., ATL devices and/or its spare parts. It is submitted that the plaintiffs cannot claim proprietary right over the drawings with an intent to keep the other competitors out with a view to maintain monopoly more so when the plaintiffs participated in the bid process and lost the contract. It is further submitted that this case is the outcome of the frustration on the part of the plaintiffs in losing the contract. The fact that it had participated in the bid process, clearly shows that it never had any objection against Railways for carrying out the repairs of ATL devices by inviting different players in the field by process of tender. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have no copyright in the industrial drawings and peculiar facts of the case clearly shows that the suit itself is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.