Unistal System Pvt. Ltd. v. Prodata Doctor Pvt. Ltd.
(2009) 112 DRJ 345
In the High Court of Delhi
I.A. No. 4920/2009 in CS (OS) 792/2008
Before Justice S.L. Bhayana
Decided on September 3, 2009

Relevancy of the case: Copyright violation and breach of court’s order.

Statutes & Provisions Involved

• The Constitution of India, 1950 (Article 20(3))
• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 63, 65)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 381)
• The Copyright Act, 1957 (Section 14(6))
• The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order 39 Rule 1, 2, 7, 10; Section 151)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant alleging that their software was sold by the defendants by varying the version (reconfiguring, reproducing, modifying). They were sold under multiple labels supported by different domain name registrars mainly in the name “Data Doctor”.
• The plaintiff prayed that the defendants be directed to submit all the money and income made and obtained by the sale of the aforementioned software as well as to promptly confiscate all the payment gateways and services consequently, and bring them under the court’s possession.
• The software sold by the defendant was alleged to be identical apart from the fact that they altered the company’s name and the infringed software continues to be in possession of the defendant.
• The defendants continued to sell the software belonging to the plaintiff even after an ad-interim ex-parte order.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

The plaintiff’s counsel:

• The report submitted by The Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) clearly shows that the defendant breached the court’s order and continued to sell the software of the plaintiff and its variations. Hence, there are sufficient grounds for stating that all the money derived from the sale of Data Doctor software and its various copied products, and other versions shall be brought under the possession of the hon’ble court.

Opinion of the Bench

• Stating the Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it was asserted that this rule is designed to take care of such kinds of situations during the pendency of the suit. In these situations, the court must weigh one condition against another and decide where the balance of convenience falls, and it was obvious that the defendant breached the court’s order as there is ample evidence to demonstrate this.
• The defendant’s argument has no substantive reason to stand and is untenable.
• The plaintiff shall be entitled to this relief as the defendants are enjoying the benefits by continuously selling the copied version of the software and are, therefore liable to deposit the proceeds of the sales in the court.

Final Decision

• The application was allowed.
• A time frame of four weeks was granted to the defendants to deposit the proceeds of the sale.

This case summary has been prepared by Akshara Kamath, an undergraduate student at Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in June/July 2020.