HOUGHTON MIFFLIN CO. Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR ARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff sues the defendant for permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs, complaining copyright infringement.

(2.) The suit averments are that the plaintiff is the copyright proprietor of several publications in respect of books. It is contended that the plaintiff has been in the publication business since 1908 as a successor to several firms that were originally formed in 1880. It submits that its worldwide sales are to the tune of US $ 1 billion. It is contended in the suit that the plaintiff's publications are known the world-over, particularly its educational and text books on specialized subjects, such as Economics, Chemistry etc. According to the plaintiff, it makes available several popular editions in Indian markets; some prominent titles among those are listed in para 5 of the suit. According to the averments, Special editions are priced differently and adapted to cater to Indian markets. The suit contends that the plaintiff granted time-bound permission to the defendant to reprint and sell 24 titles in the Indian market. These permissions were in the form of agreements entered into on various dates, each having a life-span of five years. It is submitted that the time-period in all the cases expired exactly after five years and the last of such agreements expired on 09.07.2003.

(3.) The suit refers to some correspondence between the parties where the defendant had sought extension of time and additionally, permission for marketing the plaintiff's titles and re-prints of other editions. The suit alleges that in December 2005, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant was unauthorizedly offering its books and publications for sale on the Internet. It is also alleged that in February 2006, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant was illegally reprinting, selling, supplying and stocking re-prints of its (plaintiff's) works. In para 14, the plaintiff has listed 19 of its publications (termed as "best sellers"), which were allegedly unauthorisedly offered for sale. The plaintiff submits to having purchased such allegedly infringing copies, and thereafter sought recourse to criminal proceedings, which led to Search and Seizure by the police authorities, pursuant to proceedings arising out of FIR No. 140/2006. The suit contends that the defendant had stocked a large number of such infringing goods, including 900 copies of Introduction to Programming and Strategic Approach; 800 copies of English online Student's Guide to Internet & Worldwide Web; 500 copies of Lotus 123 for Windows etc.