Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5.8 Given the nature of the present challenge, it is necessary to reproduce, in extenso, the relevant assertions in the plaint on the above issues, thus:

"6. During the course of their employment, the Defendant No. 1 and 2 had access to confidential and proprietary information that belongs to the Plaintiffs. The information includes customer databases, marketing material, copyrighted content and online advertising techniques, all of which was obtained and created by the Plaintiff over the past 5 years at a huge cost, and after application of skill and judgment. The Defendant No. 1 and 2 were using this information to sell products under the brand 'Adya Ayurveda', i.e., the Defendant No. 3. The Defendants are using the Plaintiff has transacted with and built a business relationship with over a period of about 5 years. The Defendants for this purpose are using marketing material that was developed by and is owned by the Plaintiff. This material is being used in marketing emails and on the 1st Defendant's Website, www.adyayurveda.com. The Defendants No. 1 & 2 copy-pasted Plaintiffs content and used that for marketing products of Defendant No.3 under the brand name of the Defendant No. 3 in the e-mails sent by the Defendants addressed to the clients of the Plaintiffs in order to induce such clients to purchase the said products of the Defendant No.3, to the detriment of the Plaintiff, and with the intent of unjust enrichment of the Defendants. The fact that this is a slavish attempt at passing off the products of the Plaintiffs is demonstrated by the Defendants using of creative copyrighted material of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs also have legitimate reason to believe that the Defendants have been in possession of the entire database till at least April 2018. Moreover, a comparison of the pop-ups enabled through the beeketing application/ plug-in containing details of customers who appear to have bought products from the Defendant No.3, as viewed on the website of the Defendant No.3 with the actual list of customers of the Plaintiffs showed a match of upto 84% of such customers. The Plaintiffs accordingly have very strong reasons to believe that the persons to whom the Defendant No.3 has sold its products are the customers of the Plaintiffs, and that such sale has occasioned on account of theft of the customer database by the Defendants No.l and 2.- The Defendants purposely copy pasted material that belonged to the Plaintiffs in which the Plaintiff No. 1 had copyright, in order to create confusion in the mind of the Plaintiffs' customers, while selling the products of the Defendant No.3, which is evident from the documents, and transcripts of customer calls filed along with the Plaint, and is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. Such information as to the details of customers of the Defendant No.3 would be available to the Defendant No.l, and the Defendant No.l is called upon to indicate such details to this Hon'ble Court. It is highly suspicious that more than 84% of the customers of the Defendant No.3, as displayed on the beeketing application, match the list of customers of the Plaintiffs. Such a high co-relation only further lends credence to the fact that the Defendants had access to, had obtained illegally, and had used, the confidential proprietary customer database of the Plaintiffs. Pertinently, the reason why the Plaintiffs also ought to be compensated for such unauthorized use of database of customers living in countries outside India is on account of possible liabilities that may arise out of use of such details in a manner that has not been authorized by the person who has provided to the Plaintiffs his or her personal details. Moreover, such personal data is provided to the Plaintiffs by its customers as is explained in detail in the succeeding paragraphs. Such data has enormous economic value, as also has immense potential to benefit a company engaged in a similar business as the Plaintiffs. Such immense potential is on account of not just a direct list of customers, but the ability to utilize each parameter of data relating to such customers to further predict/identify potential customers, thereby significantly reducing the advertising costs for further customer acquisition. In the present case, the Defendants No.l & 2 have not just accessed such data on account of their employment with the Plaintiffs, but have actually been provided access by the Plaintiff. This is to say that every employee does not automatically by virtue of being employed with the Plaintiffs know details of customers/potential customers, but such employee only comes into possession of customer data upon specific authorization, or at times through concerted actions for such access. The Defendant No. 1 copy-pasted Plaintiffs content and used that for marketing in its emails. It is submitted that the Defendant No. 1 purposely copy pasted material that belonged to the Plaintiff No.l in which the Plaintiff No.l had copyright, and used the trade dress of products of the Plaintiff No.l while selling products of the Defendant No.3 in order to create confusion in the mind of Plaintiffs customers which is evidenced in the Suit and is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. Such information as to the details of customers of the Defendant No. 3 would be available to the Defendant No.l, and the Defendant No.l is called upon to indicate such details to this Hon'ble Court. It is highly suspicious that more than 84% of the customers of the Defendant No.3, as displayed on the beeketing application, match the list of customers of the Plaintiff No.l. Such a high co-relation only further lends credence to the fact that the Defendant No. 1 had access to, had obtained illegally, and had used, the confidential proprietary customer database of the Plaintiff No.l. Pertinently, the reason why the Plaintiff No. 1 also ought to be compensated for such unauthorized use of database of customers living in countries outside India is on account of possible liabilities that may arise out of use of such details in a manner that has not been authorized by the person who has handed over his or her personal details. Moreover, such personal data is provided to the Plaintiffs by its customers as the end result of its unique business process/strategy/method. This is explained in detail in the succeeding paragraphs. Such data has enormous economic value, as also has immense potential to benefit a company engaged in a similar business as the Plaintiffs. Such immense potential is on account of not just a direct list of customers, but the ability to utilize each parameter of data relating to such customers to further predict/identify potential customers, thereby significantly reducing the advertising costs for further customer acquisition. In the present case, the Defendants No.1 & 2 with the Plaintiffs, but have actually been provided access by the Plaintiff. This is to say that every employee does not automatically by virtue of being employed with the Plaintiffs know details of customers /potential customers, but such employee only comes into possession of customer data upon specific authorization, or at times through concerted actions for such access.

*****
41. On facts as pleaded in plaint it appeared that there can be no confidentiality about such a list. Just like customers/clients of an Advocate practicing in the field of acquisition of land and determination of compensation therefor can comprise only of those whose land has been acquired and whose particulars are contained in the acquisition notification and/or award pronounced by the Land Acquisition Collector, similarly the list of customers/clients of the plaintiff, carrying on business in the field of logistic and freight forwarding, can only comprise of businesses/industry requiring carriage of goods and material and none else. Names and contact addresses of such businesses are easily available in public domain. Any competitor of the plaintiff worth its salt would also know of such businesses/industry and be free to market his services to them, even if presently employing the service of the plaintiff. I am thus unable to fathom the confidentiality therein and 16:36:54 during the hearing also repeatedly enquired about the same and also enquired about the particulars of other works/databases and in which also copyright and confidentiality was claimed. No answer was forthcoming. Every customer list cannot qualify as confidential information or a trade secret unless the confidentiality around such a list is of economic value/business value/commercial value. A thought also crossed my mind, whether not any employee of the plaintiff, dealing with the customers/clients of the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff, would have knowledge of the said customers/clients and their contact address even in the absence of a list and how could such an employee, when joining the employment of a competitor, be prevented from marketing the services of the competitor to the employees/clients at the address on which he was earlier servicing them under employment of the former employer and whether not it would amount to restraint of trade.