Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. Learned counsel submits that a majority of the users of the software of the plaintiff in India make use of the unlicensed/ pirated/ cracked version of the software, instead of purchasing a legal license to use the software (which is available for a nominal sum of USD 179 only). In the Indian market, unlicensed/ pirated/ cracked versions of both 'EDIUS Pro' and 'EDIUS Workgroup' are made available, among others, such as EDIUS 8, 9, X (10) and even the latest version i.e. EDIUS 11. While 'EDIUS Pro' is used by small filmmaking companies, independent film makers/ content creators etc., 'EDIUS Workgroup' is targeted at and used by professional filmmakers and large corporations or conglomerates.

31. To circumvent the above verification process, the pirated users of the software attempt to prevent communication which takes place between EDIUS software and EDIUS license server pirated. The said invalid/ incorrect data, i.e. fake or misused serial numbers and EDIUS id is then communicated to the EDIUS license server and saved in the EDIUS license server log. With each such request by a pirated user, the plaintiff thus receives the Internet Protocol address ("IP address") of the crack user and the specific time stamp together with the EDIUS crack users' data such as the incorrect serial number which is easily detectable as an unlicensed/ pirated/ cracked version.

32. Since, as per the records maintained by the plaintiff, India currently, This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/08/2024 at 21:07:43 as of May, 2024 has 184,515 (One Lakh Eighty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Fifteen) registered eIDs, against which there are only 6,168 (Six Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Eight) registered eID users with legitimate EDIUS license in India, i.e. only 3.34% of users having an eID, the same creates a suspicion and raises a doubt in the mind of this Court. Seemingly, there are large number of entities like the defendant no.1/ Ashok Kumar(s) who are dealing with the pirated software EDIUS of the plaintiff in India. That the defendant no.1 is doing so and being in the same business as that of the plaintiff, clearly reflects that defendant no.1 was always aware of the plaintiff and its software EDIUS. Despite thereto, the defendant no.1 chose to wrongly adopt and use the software EDIUS of the plaintiff without any basis and/ or reason, much less seeking any prior permission/ authority from it. Doing so, such adoption and use by the defendant no.1 are unwarranted. Such offering and selling the pirated software EDIUS of the plaintiff by the defendant no.1 is illegal and unethical.

33. All the above are likely to cause immense confusion and deception amongst general public at large, especially the set of customers to whom defendant no.1/Ashok Kumar(s) would be offering the pirated EDIUS software of the plaintiff in India. Therefore, the sole intention of the defendant no.1 is to deprive the plaintiff reaping the fruits of its hard work and labour and make the utmost benefit therefrom by making negligible investment(s) from its side.