Landmark Trademark Case Judgement

Only available on StudyMode
  • Topic: Copyright, Injunction, United States copyright law
  • Pages : 32 (12526 words )
  • Download(s) : 76
  • Published : May 6, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
Bottom of Form
Bombay High Court
First Appeal No.1076/20 vs Aged 26 Years, Occ. : Business on 6 March, 2012 Bench: A. B. Chaudhari
1 fa1076.11.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.1076/2011
APPELLANT :- Dhiraj Dharamdas Dewani, Aged 26 years, Occ. : Business, Proprietor M/s Dewani Soft Inc. Office
situated at 303, 3rd Floor, Panjwani
Market, Teen Nal Chowk, Itwari, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS:- 1. M/s Sonal Info Systems Pvt. Ltd. through its Directors. 1a) Suresh Mansukhlal Bothra,
aged adult, Occupation Business,
Director Sonal Info Systems
Private Limited.
1b) Usha Suresh Bothra, Aged adult,
Occupation business, Director
Sonal Info Systems Private Limited.
1c) Jatanbai Mansukhlal Bothra,
Aged adult, Occupation business,
Director Sonal Info Systems
Private Limited.
Directors (1a to 1c) c/o Office
at G-1, Ganga Apartment, Gharpure
Ghat, Ashok Stambh, Nasik-422002.
Nos. 1a to 1c R/o Ridhi Siddhi
Apartment, Indankat, Panchavati,
Nasik 422131.
----------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri U.N. Vyas, Adv. for appellant] [Shri K.V. Deshmukh, Adv. for respdt. nos.1 (a) to (c)] ----------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. Date of reserving the judgment : 27.01.2012 Date of pronouncing the judgment : 06.03.2012 2 fa1076.11.odt J U D G M E N T

1. Heard. Admit. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties. 2. This appeal was taken up for final disposal with the consent of the Counsel for the rival parties in view of the fact that application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the respondent/defendant was allowed and consequently, the appellant contended that he stands without any remedy. FACTS

3. The appellant is the original plaintiff, who filed Special Civil Suit No.3/2010 in the Court of District Judge 5, Nagpur under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957 for declaration and permanent injunction. He averred that he developed a software to facilitate the professionals like Income Tax Advocates, Chartered Accountants, Sales Tax practitioners, Accountants in their professional work. The objective is to facilitate automatic preparation of return, namely form No.231 to 324, to validate 'E- 3 fa1076.11.odt returns' with inbuilt validation, utility and auto calculation facility etc. amongst so many other functions and programmes developed in the said software. It was processed since the year 2005 and finally was launched in the market in the year 2007. The software became popular in the market and consequently, the competitors of the plaintiff including the respondents/defendants started creating obstacles in the marketing of the said product. As a result of the intention of the respondents to obstruct the plaintiff from doing his business of marketing the said product, the respondents filed F.I.R. with Police Station Nasik on 30.1.2010 which registered as Crime No.3007/2010 under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act. Acting on the said F.I.R., Nasik police suddenly visited the premises of the plaintiff on 3.2.2010 without any knowledge or intimation to the plaintiff and seized various materials from his office and went away. Even before the said action and thereafter the respondents started oral campaign about the plaintiff's said product falsely propagating that the product was not of good quality and so on and so forth. The plaintiff having no alternative filed 4 fa1076.11.odt Special Civil Suit No.3/2010 on 3.3.2010.

4. Thereafter, the respondents/defendants on 29.3.2010 filed a suit under Section 55 of the Copyright Act in the Court at Nasik vide Civil Suit No.1/2010 and also obtained ex parte injunction on 15.4.2010 and upon appearance of the present plaintiff before the Nasik Court and after hearing the parties, the said Court on 14.10.2010 suspended the said order of ex parte injunction till the...
tracking img