Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The plaintiff claims that the questions and distracters contained in the PM Software have been developed by conducting extensive research; they contain unique terminology; and the same have not been borrowed or adopted from the previous examination materials of the Project Management Institute (in short, „PMI‟), as the PMI‟s Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct expressly prohibits the sharing of itsVerified Signature Not previous examination questions and answers. The plaintiff states Digitally Signed By:SUNIL Signing Date:22.08.2023 that the questions and distracters in the PM Software have also not been borrowed or adopted from any common sources which are publically available. The plaintiff claims that the questions and distracters in the PM Software are original literary works under Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to the „Act‟) and are therefore entitled to copyright protection under Sections 13 and 14 of the Act. They have been duly registered as copyright in the USA.

11. The defendants state that both, the Plaintiff and the defendant no.1, are the Registered Education Providers (in short, „REP‟) with PMI. The defendants further claim that the questions prepared by REPs in the examination tool kit would have to conform to the terminology and the language of PMBOK, and the REPs do not have a free hand in this aspect while setting the examination preparation kits. Due to the standard syllabus given in the PMBOK and the usual pattern of questions used by the PMI, the practice mock examinations offered by various players do not have much scope for variation, as they originate from and have to conform to one common source, namely, PMBOK, and follow the pattern set by the PMI over the years. The questions are framed based on the questions posted by various candidates on the internet based on their own experiences from PMI's examination taken by them. There are various websites where discussions regarding the questions asked by the PMI in its examinations are uploaded. These sites are free sites and the information is open to public.

45. He reiterates that the questions in the defendants‟ software are based on open-source information, including Wikipedia. He submits that the plaintiff and the defendant are both REP with PMI and as such have to follow the work content as provided by PMI in PMBOK. They have to adhere to this common source and only a limited deviation is allowed. Due to common source, there is bound to be some similarities in the content of the software. The software is also based onVerified Signature Not the questions posted by various candidates on the internet from the Digitally Signed By:SUNIL Signing Date:22.08.2023 examination taken by them. The plaintiff cannot, therefore, claim monopoly over them. Even the alleged stylisation is not unique to the plaintiff.

52. On the plea, that Ex.PW1/H to Ex.PW1/L, being not supported with a certificate in terms of Section 65B of the IEA, are inadmissible in evidence, the learned counsel for the plaintiff reiterates that once there was no denial of these charts by the defendants, and the only defence raised by the defendants was that they are from a common source, no further proof of the same was and is required to be adduced.