AREA: Section 3 of Copyright Act 1957.
FACTS:
In this case, the plaintiff, a company engaged in logistics and freight forwarding services, has filed a suit against twelve defendants. The plaintiff is involved in logistics and freight forwarding services. The plaintiff has developed comprehensive and distinctive data, information, and databases crucial to its business operations. The plaintiff's confidential data includes customer databases, accounts information, airway drawings, airway bills templates, plans, reports, taxes, and other financial information. This confidential data is considered trade secrets and is stored in digital format on the plaintiff's computers, computer systems, networks, resources, and communication devices. The plaintiff asserts that the confidential data and information constitute original artistic and literary works under the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiff claims to be the first owner of the copyright in the said information and data. Defendants No.1 to 8 were employed by the plaintiff in various capacities. The appointment letters of the defendants contain clauses related to termination, recovery of outstanding amounts, termination grounds, confidentiality, and non-competition agreements. The plaintiff provided extensive training to defendants No.1 to 8, familiarizing them with the confidential information and data of the plaintiff. Electronic devices, including laptops, mobile phones, and desktops, were allocated to defendants No.1 to 8 for official purposes. Defendants No.1 to 8 resigned through emails during a conspiracy but retained electronic devices during the notice period, which contained confidential data and trade secrets. Defendants are accused of infringing the plaintiff's copyright in its confidential data, information, and trade secrets and leaked confidential data and information to defendants No.9 to 11.
ISSUES:
Whether the defendants are accused of infringing the plaintiff's copyright in its confidential data?
Whether the said list qualifies as an original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work?
ANALYSIS:
The plaintiff’s counsel submitted that the plaintiff owns the copyright under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
He placed reliance on the Skype conversations and emails among the defendants to establish copyright violation.
The defendant’s counsel argued that the plaintiff’s counsel failed to establish the author of the copyrighted material. The owner of a copyright has to be a natural person.
The primary set of allegations is against client data. Client data contains names, addresses, phone numbers and other information. This is neither an original literary work nor an artistic rendition. The plaintiff’s complaint is vague and baseless.
The defendant’s no.9 and 10 in their joint written statement have denied the claim in the plaint and also pleaded that they have no privity of contract with plaintiff.
As per the reports of the commissions issued at the instance of the plaintiff also, what has been found in possession of the defendants is the list of customers and clients serviced by the plaintiff and their contact persons.
Copyright, as distinct from a trademark, is a statutory and not a common law right or a natural right.
The list aforesaid is not a cinematograph film or a sound recording. The first question to be thus determined is, whether the said list qualifies as an original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work.
JUDGMENT:
It is found that as per the plaintiff also, there was no fixed term for which either of the defendant’s no.1 to 8 had agreed to serve the plaintiff. The permanent injunction and in the alternative damages claimed on the premise of non-compete clause thus discloses no cause of action and is not required to be put to trial. The plaint thus, as per the averments made in the plaint, does not disclose the plaintiff to be entitled to the reliefs of injunction or damages and is thus liable to be rejected and the suit is dismissed.
Section 3 of the Copyright Act defines 'publication' as, making a work available to the public by issue of copies or by communicating the work to the public. It is not the case of the plaintiff that it has published the said list. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiff on the basis of copyright thus have no chance of success in the suit and the plaint is liable to be rejected, insofar as on the premise of copyright.
Comments