J AND K ROWLING Vs. DAS BOOK DEPOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were proceeded with ex parte by virtue of an order dated 06.08.2004 and defendant No.1 was similarly directed to be proceeded against ex parte by virtue of order dated 02.05.2005. The plaintiffs were directed to lead ex parte evidence. They have done so by filing an affidavit by way of evidence of one Mr. Anil Kumar who is the constituted attorney of the plaintiffs. A true copy of the power of attorney is exhibited as Ex.PW1/1. The plaintiffs have also filed documents which have been exhibited as Exhibits PW1/1 to PW1/15.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and have examined the pleadings as well as the evidence on record. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs are the authors of the original literary works published worldwide and sold in English under the title of "Harry Potter" series. In paragraph 11 of the evidence affidavit it is stated that on 11.03.2004, the plaintiffs upon receiving information that the defendants were publishing infringing the work titled "Harry Potterer Ascharya Jagat" in Bangla which is an unauthorised translation of the English titled "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone", required its representative to visit the business premises and purchase infringing copies of the said title "Harry Potterer Ascharya Jagat". The original receipt by which the infringing copy was purchased is exhibited as Exhibit PW1/7 and the infringing copies are Exhibit PW1/8. The defendants have also edited and used the photographs in the plaintiffs' cinematographic work titled "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" and "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets".

(3.) The plaintiffs have been able to show and establish that they are the authors of the original work in the series titled "Harry Potter". The plaintiffs have also been able to show that the defendants have infringed their rights. Accordingly, the defendants are entitled to the reliefs claimed in paragraph 36 (a), (b), (c) and (e). Insofar as the decree for payment of damages of Rs.20 lacs is concerned the plaintiffs are handicapped inasmuch as the defendants have not entered appearance and there is no evidence available to quantify the extent of damages. However, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs prayed that token damages be imposed because such infringing actions should not go unpunished.