Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.40 seconds)Section 62 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
M/S. Dhodha House vs S.K. Maingi on 15 December, 2005
32. In the present case, however, the website Amazon.com makes it clear
that the facility is only available to the viewers in US and not elsewhere.
The agreement with Defendant No.11 also specifies this. The affidavit of
Mr. Bakshi also makes it clear that there were 33 downloads for a revenue
of approximately USD 24.75 and that the downloads took place in the US
and not in India. In other words, there is nothing to show that using the
website of Amazon.com any transaction constituting infringement of the
copyright of the Plaintiffs was concluded in India. The decisions in Dodha
House v. S.K. Maingi and Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd., do
not support the case of the Plaintiffs that Section 62(2) CA would enable the
CS (OS) No. 676 of 2012 Page 16 of 22
Plaintiffs to bring a suit against a foreign Defendant notwithstanding the
fact that no part of the cause of action arose within the territory of the forum
Court.
Exphar Sa & Anr vs Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. & Anr on 20 February, 2004
32. In the present case, however, the website Amazon.com makes it clear
that the facility is only available to the viewers in US and not elsewhere.
The agreement with Defendant No.11 also specifies this. The affidavit of
Mr. Bakshi also makes it clear that there were 33 downloads for a revenue
of approximately USD 24.75 and that the downloads took place in the US
and not in India. In other words, there is nothing to show that using the
website of Amazon.com any transaction constituting infringement of the
copyright of the Plaintiffs was concluded in India. The decisions in Dodha
House v. S.K. Maingi and Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd., do
not support the case of the Plaintiffs that Section 62(2) CA would enable the
CS (OS) No. 676 of 2012 Page 16 of 22
Plaintiffs to bring a suit against a foreign Defendant notwithstanding the
fact that no part of the cause of action arose within the territory of the forum
Court.
Consim Info Pvt. Ltd vs Google India Pvt. Ltd on 30 September, 2010
The decision in Consim Info Pvt. Ltd. v. Google India Pvt.
Ltd. does not assist the Plaintiffs. In the said judgment, the High Court of
Madras found it necessary to allow the application of the Plaintiff seeking
the impleadment of Google Inc. as the fifth Defendant in the suit. The stand
taken by Google India Pvt. Ltd. in its counter affidavit in the said case was
that "it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google Inc., USA and that Google
Inc. is the owner of the search engine." The Court accepted the plea and
observed that "Perhaps, the policies are trimmed by the subsidiaries in
different jurisdictions, depending upon the local laws. But, ultimately, it is
the holding company which owns the search engine."
Section 14 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Super Cassetes Industries Ltd. vs Myspace Inc. & Another on 29 July, 2011
In Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Myspace Inc. (supra), the website
of the Defendant was found to be "engaged in the online business of
providing and exhibiting the songs and cinematograph films worldwide
including India." The Court further noted "the said website is usually
accessed by Indians for downloading the songs of upcoming movies from
the website of the defendants." Also, in that case, the Court noted that "The
Plaintiff has substantiated the cause of action by showing some instances of
infringements which has been caused in relation to the specific works. Thus,
the said commission of the tort has occurred or occurs in India wherein the
Indian user goes to the website, the defendants through its search engine
exhibits the said works and the work is communicated to the public by
sending the work to him and facilitating downloading or reaching to the
computer of Indian user." It was found that "the said actions are sufficient
to constitute part of cause of action under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil
Procedure."
The Copyright Act, 1957
Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited vs A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr. on 23 November, 2009
In Banyan Tree v. A. Murali Krishna
Reddy 2010 (42) PTC 361, the Court held that a passive website would not
by itself vest the forum court with jurisdiction. A commercial transaction
should be shown to have been concluded using the website within the
jurisdiction of the forum court.
Smithkline Beecham Plc And Another vs Mr. Sunil Singhi And Another on 12 April, 2001
In SmithKline Beecham Plc v. Sunil Singhi 2001 PTC 321(Del), the
Court, in the context of Section 62(2) CA, accepted a similar plea that the
Defendant ought to be shown to be carrying on its local business activities
within India.