LAWS(DLH)-2009-3-122

ADOBE SYSTEMS INC Vs. K. KANNAN

Decided On March 23, 2009
Adobe Systems Inc Appellant
V/S
K. KANNAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s Adobe Systems Inc, USA , M/s Autodesk Inc, USA and Microsoft Corporation instituted the present suit, inter alia, on the ground that the defendant No.2 company and of which the defendant No.1 was the marketing executive is engaged in the business of, inter alia, hard disk loading i.e., pre loading various pirated and unlicensed software of the plaintiff companies free of costs on the computers that were being assembled and sold by them and as an incentive to customers to purchase the said machines from them. Vide ex parte order dated 21st February, 2000 the defendants were restrained from copying, selling, offering for sale, distributing, issuing to the public pirated/counterfeit/unlicensed version of the plaintiffs' software as listed in the plaint.

(2.) THE said order continues till date. The defendants appeared and filed their written statements and on 21st February, 2006 the following issues were framed:

(3.) THE defendants being ex parte, it is not necessary to deal with the issues. Mr Anand Banerjee witness of the plaintiffs (and who has been informed to be now no more) has proved the authorization in his favour from each of the plaintiffs for institution of the suit and for signing and verification of the plaint as exhibits P1, P2 and P3. As far as the plea of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the same has been invoked under the provisions of Section 62(a) of the Copyright Act. The witnesses of the plaintiffs have deposed that the plaintiffs carrying on business for profit and gain in New Delhi through their various subsidiaries, distributors and stockists and particulars of whom have been pleaded as well as deposed. As far as the plea of the defendants relating to clubbing of the cause of action, the witness of the plaintiffs has deposed that the right of relief against the defendants has arisen to the plaintiffs out of the same act or transaction of the defendants and if separate suits were instituted against the defendants common questions of law and fact would arise and there would be multiplicity of proceedings. It is further in evidence that the defendants are reproducing the copyright of the plaintiffs by electronic means and storing pirated computer programs of each of the plaintiffs on the common hard disk, CD or floppy disk and by a singular act or transaction and which floppy disk is then loaded on the computer sold by the defendants. The witness of the plaintiffs has further deposed about the right of the plaintiffs in the software/computer programmes and which, in any, case, has not been seriously controverted in the written statement filed by the defendants also. The contention of the defendants was that they were not indulging in the acts complained of by the plaintiffs. The copyright registrations in favour of the plaintiffs have been proved as Exhibit P4 to P9 and the trademark certificates as Exhibit P10 to P17.