LAWS(DLH)-2007-9-340

MICROSOFT CORPORATION Vs. KIRAN

Decided On September 07, 2007
MICROSOFT CORPORATION Appellant
V/S
KIRAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the infringement of copyrights, trademarks, passing off, rendition of accounts, damages, etc. against the defendants. The said suit has been instituted by one Mr. Anand Banerjee, the Constituted Attorney of the Plaintiff by virtue of a Letter of Authority in his favor (Ex. P1).

(2.) THE plaintiff, Microsoft Corporation, is a company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washinton, USA. The plaintiff has its marketing subsidiary, Microsoft Corporation India Private Limited, located in New Delhi. The plaintiff is stated to be one of the world's widely known companies and is also the largest software publisher in the world. The computer software of the plaintiff including various operating systems such as Microsoft Windows 2000 and Windows XP 2002 and application software such as Microsoft Office have acquired great fame and renown throughout the world. It is stated that apart from the said business, the plaintiff is also engaged in the manufacture and sale of a large range of computer peripherals (hardware).

(3.) THE plaintiff also enjoys the ownership in the trade mark 'Microsoft' which was adopted in the year 1970 and the plaintiff has used this trade mark continuously and extensively. 'Microsoft' is not only used as trade mark but also as a prominent/key and leading portion of its corporate name. The plaintiff claims that by adoption of long and extensive user products bearing the trademark Microsoft, the plaintiff is exclusively associated with the products originating from the plaintiff. Apart from the Common Law Rights, the plaintiff is also the registered proprietor of the said trademark. This trademark is registered in India in the name of the plaintiff in classes 9 and 16 and bears the registration numbers 430449B and 430450B respectively (Ex. P8 and Ex. P9). The plaintiff states that the said registrations have been renewed from time to time and are valid and subsisting.