Delhi HC awards Rs 30 lakh as damages to 3 software companies in software piracy suit
The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 30 lakh as damages to tech giant Microsoft Inc, Adobe Systems and Quest Software after a company called ‘Chetu’ based in the national capital used pirated softwares of the three companies.The Court also restricted Chetu, the Delhi based company from using any softwares of the three companies (Plaintiffs) illegally. “The defendants, their...
The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 30 lakh as damages to tech giant Microsoft Inc, Adobe Systems and Quest Software after a company called ‘Chetu’ based in the national capital used pirated softwares of the three companies.
The Court also restricted Chetu, the Delhi based company from using any softwares of the three companies (Plaintiffs) illegally. “The defendants, their principal officers, directors, agents, franchisees, servants, and all others acting for and on their behalf are restrained from directly or indirectly using for any kind of computer related activities or otherwise, pirated/counterfeit/unlicensed softwares of the Plaintiffs,” the Court said.
Microsoft Corporation, Adobe Systems and Quest Software (Plaintiffs) had moved the Delhi High Court against the Defendant, a company named ‘Chetu’ which provided IT services and solutions to its clients, and its related parties, after it came to its knowledge that the Defendant was using unlicensed/pirated software programs of the Plaintiffs on its computers.
The Plaintiffs argued that the corporate or end-user piracy was the most devastating form of the software piracy that occurs when businesses, corporations, companies, institutions, schools, non-profit organizations, etc., make additional copies of software without authorization. The Plaintiffs told the Court that by these acts, the defendant Company Chetu caused lot of damage to the plaintiffs running into crores of rupees on account of loss of business and loss of reputation and goodwill in the market. The defendant company Chetu blatantly capitalized on the strength of the international reputation enjoyed by the plaintiffs and their world famous software programs and thereby making unfair profits to the tune of crores of rupees.
The Plaintiffs had hired an independent investigator to determine the activities of Chetu and its related clients. During the investigation it was found that there are approximately 300 computer systems at Chetu, which are operating software programs such as Microsoft Office. It was also stated that there was no installation of Open Office on any of the computer systems. The Investigator also divulged the use of software programs such as Adobe reader 9.0, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Reader and Adobe Flash by approximately 60 employees working on computer systems at Chetu.
A Local Commissioner’s were relied upon by the Plaintiffs to support their case. According to his report, there were approximately 208 computer systems in use at Chetu and that all the computer systems were operating on unauthorized/unlicensed versions of Microsoft Windows Operating System and had pirated software programs such as Microsoft Office installed upon them.
The plaintiffs claimed that in September and October, 2010 a license check was conducted within their database which revealed that there were no substantial licenses purchased in the name of the defendants.
The Court held that the defendants, their principal officers, directors, agents, franchisees, servants, and all others acting for and on their behalf are restrained from directly or indirectly using for any kind of computer related activities or otherwise in any other manner, any pirated/counterfeit/unlicensed softwares of the Plaintiffs, or reproducing and distributing any pirated/counterfeit/unlicensed softwares of the Plaintiffs in contravention of the terms of the End-User License Agreement (s), or infringing in any other manner or causing or enabling or assisting others to infringe the copyrights of the Plaintiffs.
The Court also observed that the conclusions drawn by the Local Commissioner were not contested by the defendants.
“This Court is of the view, in the absence of any defence of the defendants and the magnitude of the violation carried out by the defendants, the plaintiffs shall also be entitled to damages. Accordingly, this Court awards damages to the tune of Rs. 30 lakhs in favour of the plaintiffs to be shared equally by all of them,” said a single judge bench of the High Court presided by Justice V. Kameswar Rao.