EASTERN BOOK COMPANY Vs. NAVIN J DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17/1/2001 whereby application of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and that of the defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 4 Civil Procedure code were disposed of. The learned Single Judge dismissed the application of the plaintiff for interim relief while the application of the defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 4 Civil Procedure code was allowed. As a matter of fact, by the impugned judgment similar applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure code of the plaintiff and under Order XXXIX Rule 4 Civil Procedure code of the defendant in two suits were disposed of. The plaintiff is common in both the suits while the defendants are different. The cause of action pleaded and interim relief sought is similar in the two suits. Since plaintiffs applications in both the suits stood dismissed, these appeals have been filed by the plaintiff in both the suits.

(2.) This order will dispose of the applications for interim relief filed by the appellant in both the appeals.

(3.) Briefly the facts are that plaintiff/appellant claims to be a publishing house of repute. The appellant is mainly engaged in publication of law books. With the advent of computerisation, legal reporting also took to it. The appellant claims that it developed a data base package available on CD-ROM for finding Supreme Court rulings on diverse legal issues and topics. The software developed by the appellant is known as "SCC Online Supreme Court Case Finder." The "Case Finder" includes over 84,000.00 cases based on headnotes published in the plaintiff's journal SCC. The appellant claims copyright in the headnotes to the judgments as well as in the selection, arrangement and copy-editing of the judgments. The appellant further claims that it has a complete team of editorial staff which goes through the judgments of the Supreme Court and prepares the headnotes according to the issues propositions of law, statutes involved in each case. This requires considerable skill, labour and expertise. The appellant concedes that it is not claiming any copyright in the text of the judgments. It claims copyright only in the headnotes, in the selection of judgments for publication, their arrangement and copy-editing whereby various inputs are provided in the judg- ments. The case of the appellant is that they are the owners of this copyright and the same cannot be allowed to be used or copied by anyone else. The appellant contends that the respondent is copying in toto the headnotes, the selection, arrangement and the manner of presentation of the judgments of the Supreme Court as contained in the publication of the appellant. According to the appellant, the respondent in Suit No. 624/2000 have developed a software package called "THE LAW" published in two CD-ROMS while the respondent in FAO (OS) No. 43/2001 have developed a software package called "GRAND JURIX" published in three CD-ROMs. As per the. case of the appellants, the short notes and the headnotes of the respondents' software in both the cases are identical to the short notes and headnotes contained in the plaintiffs software package. Further it is submitted that not only short notes and headnotes have been slavish- ly copied but also the entire text of the copy-edited judgments published in the law reports published by the appellant including its style and format, paragraph numbers, foot num- bers and cross references have been copied. All this is done without the permission of the appellant and thus it amounts to infringement of the copyright of the plaintiff.