9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ff No.1, having its office at Eros Corporate Towers, 5th Floor, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 and is an entity incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Plaintiff No.2 was set up in the year 1989 to provide marketing, promotion, anti-piracy awareness campaigns and actions and channel development support to plaintiff No.1 and/or its affiliates. Additionally, the products of plaintiff No.1 are distributed in New Delhi through various authorized distributors. 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff No.1 was set up in the year 1975 and is the biggest software publisher for personal and business computing in the world. It engages in the development, manufacture, licensing, and support of a range of software pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey are created by authors or member countries and originate from and are first published in the said member countries. This is by virtue of section 40 of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with the International Copyright Order, 1999. 7. The plaintiff No.1 being the owner of the copyright in the aforesaid literary works within the meaning of the proviso to Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is entitled to all the exclusive rights flowing from such ownership as set out in Section 14 of the said Act. 8. The reproduction in any material form, including publication, performance, dissemination, translation, adaptation, the use, distribution, sale, offer for sale of any of the above material without the plaintiffs consent, would amount to inf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... located at shop No.3, Mirani Nagar, Valji Ladha Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400080 and also trading at Thane (W) and New Mumbai, is a business entity engaged in marking and selling computer hardware including branded computers and peripherals. Defendant No.1 appears to be the proprietor of the said defendant No.2-firm. 12. The plaintiffs case against the defendants is that in the month of October, 2007, the plaintiffs received information that the defendants were infringing the plaintiffs copyrights and other intellectual property rights by carrying on the business of unauthorized Hard Disk Loading of the plaintiffs software programmes on to the branded computers sold by them to their customers. The said unlicensed software, naturall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plaint, mainly, on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against defendant No.1, as defendant No.1 is not involved in any kind of copyright violation of licensed software. It was also stated in the application that there is no transaction between defendant No.1 and defendant No.2, as both the entities are different. The business of defendant No.2 is not being run by defendant No.1. No written statement was filed by the defendant No.1, rather the defendant No.1 stopped appearing before the Court with effect from 10.11.2008. Therefore, the defendants were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 10.02.2009. 15. The plaintiffs were given time to file the affidavit(s) in terms of the ex parte evidence. The plaintiffs in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
