caselaws
Supreme Court of India
Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation vs Sarine Technologies Ltd. on 30 July, 2018Author: U U Lalit
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7304-7305 OF 2018
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.17685-86 of 2018)
Diyora and Bhanderi Corporation
through its partner and Ors. ………Appellants
VERSUS
Sarine Technologies Ltd. ..…. Respondent
JUDGMENT
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Commercial Trade Mark Suit No.8 of 2017 was filed by the
respondent herein (‘plaintiff’, for short) in the Court of District Judge, Surat
contending inter alia that it had validly subsisting Copyright in Advisor™
software both in Israel as well as in USA; that it had secured registration in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
USA in the 6th version (or version 6.0) of its Advisor™ software bearing
Date: 2018.07.30
12:52:30 IST
Reason:
registration No.TX8-252-522; that as per International Copyright Order,
2
1999 this right also extended to India, being a Member Country under the
Berne Copyright Union in like manner as if it was published in India and
that the petitioners (‘defendants’, for short) herein had infringed the
copyright of the Plaintiff over Advisor™ software. According to the
plaintiff said software, using a three dimensional representation helps in
analyzing how best a raw precious stone can be cut and polished so that best
quality diamonds and precious stones could finally emerge and thus helps in
deriving maximum advantage. The plaintiff prayed inter alia for permanent
injunction against the defendants in respect of …… “Advisor™ software,
for which copyright subsists under common law and also version 6.0
whereof, the code for which also includes programming from previous
versions, has been registered in the USA copyright No.TX8-252-522”. The
plaintiff also filed an application for interim injunction (Exh.-5) and prayed
for following relief:-
“(i) An order of ex-parte ad interim injunction be passed in
favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendants, their
affiliates, subsidiaries, related parties, officers, directors,
representatives, agents, distributors, assigns, nominees and
customers restraining them from directly or indirectly, jointly or
severally, using distributing, selling, offering for sale any
inclusion scanning services that infringe the Plaintiff’s
copyright as well as any future machine/device that
incorporates the copyrighted software of the Plaintiff and
infringes the copyright of the Plaintiff in its Advisor™
3
software, for which copyright subsists under common law and
also version 6.0 whereof, the code for which also includes
programming from previous versions, has been registered in the
United States of America as Copyright No.TX8-252-522; And
be made absolute till final decision of the suit.”
3. The matter was contested and the trial court by its order dated
22.09.2017 dismissed the application for interim injunction. In an appeal
preferred by the plaintiff, the High Court by its order dated 21.12.2017 set
aside the order passed by the trial court and remitted the matter back to the
trial court for fresh consideration. It was observed by the High Court as
under:-
“[6.1] In any case as observed hereinabove whether the source
code or the object code of the plaintiff’s software and the
defendants’ software are the same or not or the defendants have
copied the source code or the object code of the plaintiff’s
software or not would go to the root of the matter. The source
code or the object code of the plaintiff’s and defendants’
software are required to be compared by calling upon both of
them to provide their respective source code and object code
which can be sent to any impartial and independent expert for
comparison. Therefore, we are of the opinion that without
further entering into the merits of the case and /or expressing
anything on merits, the matter is required to be remanded to the
learned Judge, Commercial Court for deciding the application
Exh.5 afresh and after calling upon both, the plaintiff and the
defendants to provide their respective source code and object
code to the Court so that the same can be sent to any impartial
and independent expert for comparison. On the aforesaid
ground alone the impugned order passed by the learned Judge,
4
Commercial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and the
matter is required to be remanded to the learned Judge,
Commercial Court for deciding the application Exh.5 afresh
and after undertaking the exercise as stated hereinabove.
[7.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
present Appeal from Order succeeds. Impugned order passed
below Exh.5 application by the learned Judge, Commercial
Court, Vadodara in Commercial Trade Mark Suit No.8/2017 is
hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the
learned Judge, Commercial Court, Vadodara for deciding the
application Exh.5 afresh in accordance with law and on its own
merits, however while deciding the application Exh.5, the
learned Judge, Commercial Court to call upon the plaintiff and
the defendants to provide their respective source code and
object code of their respective software to the Court and the
Court may send the same to some impartial and independent
expert for comparison with the source code and object code of
the plaintiff. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a
period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the present order
and/or the receipt of the writ of the present order. Present
Appeal from Order is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No
costs.”
The aforesaid order was challenged in this Court by the defendants
but this Court did not find any ground to interfere and the Special Leave
Petition was dismissed on 16.03.2018.
4. While the matter thus stood remitted to the trial court, following
orders were passed by the trial court:-
5
a) On 12.02.2018 a local Commissioner was appointed and both
the parties were directed to provide source code and object code of
their respective software to the local Commissioner. Paragraph 12 of
the order was as under:-
“12. The Court Commissioner is directed to furnish the
source and object code of defendants’ software “Work
Manager” in sealed cover on 21.02.2018. Plaintiff is also
directed to submit the certified copy of the copyrighted
software’s source code and object code in sealed cover on
21.02.2018.”
The parties were also directed to furnish the names of experts
for comparing source code and object code.
b) On 28.02.2018 some directions were passed. One such
direction was,
“The plaintiff is further directed to furnish on affidavit
that whatever source code and object code is registered,
the same has been furnished to the Court Commissioner.”
c) On 16.03.2018 the trial court appointed one Mr. Robert “Bob”
Zeidman whose name was suggested by the plaintiff as technical
expert to compare the software of the plaintiff and defendants and “to
report the Court as to whether the source code and object code of the
defendants have infringed the copyright of the plaintiff”. The order
indicates that names of three Institutions namely Centre for
6
Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), Department of
Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology,
Bombay and Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras were suggested by the
defendants but were objected by the plaintiff on grounds inter alia that
the Advocate for the defendants was associated with these Institutions
and there was an apprehension regarding impartiality, independence
of those Institutions. This objection was rejected by the trial court
saying that merely because one of the Advocates had got educated
from these Institutions would not mean that these Institutions could be
won over by the defendants. The trial court however found that the
profiles of the professors of the Institutions which were attached with
the application, did not reveal that they could conduct the task of
comparison of source code and object code. The trial court thus found
said Mr. Zeidman to be the most competent person to undertake the
task of comparing the software of source code and object code of the
plaintiff and the defendants.
5. The order dated 16.03.2018 passed by the trial court appointing said
Mr. Zeidman as an expert was challenged by the defendants by filing Special
Civil application No.4468 of 2018 in the High Court of Gujarat at
7
Ahmedabad. One of the objections raised by the defendants was that if their
software were to be shared with third parties, knowingly or unknowingly, the
defendants would face tremendous prejudice and hardship. The submission
was rejected by the High Court. It also observed that it was open to the trial
court to appoint any expert available in India or any other foreign expert and
the trial court having found Mr. Zeidman to be the most appropriate person,
such assessment made by the trial court was not erroneous on any count.
The High Court thus dismissed said Special Civil Application by its order
dated 01.05.2018.
6. After the disposal of the matter by the High Court on 01.05.2018, an
application was preferred by the defendants and one of the prayers was:-
“(d) Direction be issued to compare the source code and
object code of the defendants’ software with the certified copy
of the Registered Advisor Software 6.0 only, in consonance
with the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 12.02.2018.”
It was contended that the plaintiff had submitted additional material to
be compared by the expert and that the matter be confined to source code of
software Advisor 6.0. This matter was dealt with by the trial court by
passing following direction in its order dated 04.05.2018:-
“Having considered the submissions, in these
circumstances, it is made clear that the expert shall compare
registered object code and source code of the software of the
plaintiff with the defendants’ software. The other
8
material/additional material (which is not in accordance to the
orders of the court) produced by the plaintiff in the sealed cover
need not to be considered by the expert. It is made clear that
this Court has passed the order for comparison of the source
code and object code in respect of registered version of the
plaintiff. The orders dated 12.02.2018 and 28.02.2018 passed
by this court and order dated 21.10.2017 of the Hon’ble High
Court be complied with in letter and spirit. It is again made
clear by the court that at the time of deciding the logistic for
comparison of source and object code, the Court will decide
that what material is required to be sent for comparison in
compliance of the orders. Further, keeping in view the
confidentiality of source code, the certified copy of the software
advisor 6.0 be kept in sealed cover. The separate order for safe
custody of the software will be passed today.”
7. On 07.05.2018, an email was addressed by the counsel for the
defendants to said Mr. Zeidman asking him whether he was willing to visit
India or the software be sent to him to undertake the task of comparing the
software and further as to what would be his professional fees and other
miscellaneous costs. Various emails have been placed on record to show
that the defendants were in touch with said Mr. Zeidman regarding his visit
and engagement as an expert to undertake the task.
8. On 01.06.2018 while considering the application filed by the plaintiff
regarding logistics how the expert would carry out the exercise of
comparison, it was observed by the trial court :-
“However, the outcome of the aforesaid remains that the
expert may compare the source code and object code of the
9
defendants with that of the plaintiffs source code and object in
the Advisor™ software (all previous and existing) whether
registered or otherwise.”
9. The aforesaid order dated 01.06.2018 was challenged by the
defendants in the High Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.
9010 of 2018. The defendants also challenged the validity of the provisions
of Section 8 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and
Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015. The basic
submission of the defendants was that the scope of the matter which was
clearly restricted to comparison of source code and object code in respect of
registered version of the plaintiff as against the source code and object code
of the software of the defendants vide order dated 04.05.2018, was sought to
be expanded by the order dated 01.06.2018. As against the source code and
object code in respect of registered version of the plaintiff, the comparison
could now be with all previous and existing software whether registered or
otherwise. The objection was rejected by the High Court on the ground that
while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court
could not act as a Court of Appeal. Since no submissions were advanced
regarding validity of the provisions of aforesaid Section 8, the High Court
felt it unnecessary to go into the validity of said provision.
10
10. These orders dated 01.05.2018 and 04.07.2018 passed by the High
Court have now been called in question by the defendants by filing
aforementioned Special Leave Petition Nos.17685-17686 of 2018 which
were filed on 10th July, 2018. The matter came up before this Court on
16.07.2018. The learned Senior Counsel who appeared on caveat at that
stage submitted that the expert in question Mr. Zeidman had already arrived
to conduct the comparison and that the plaintiff would be put to great
prejudice if the work of comparison were to be suspended pending
consideration by this Court. This Court, therefore, passed following order
on 16.07.2018:
“Issue notice.
Let counter affidavit be filed by the respondent within
two days. Rejoinder affidavit be filed within three days
thereafter.
In the meantime, status quo as of today shall be
maintained by the parties in relation to the subject matter of the
case.
We also direct that the entire expenditure of to and fro
passage of the expert shall initially be borne by the respondent
in the present matter and in case we dismiss the mater, then the
petitioners shall reimburse the expenses entirety for being paid
to the respondent.
List these matters on 24th July, 2018”
11
11. The parties having exchanged pleadings the matter was immediately
taken up for hearing. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the defendants submitted inter alia:
(a) The apprehension expressed regarding impartiality and independence
of institutions of repute suggested by the defendants was completely
uncalled for. The profile of the concerned professors indicated tremendous
experience of the gentlemen in question in matters of decoding software
and appropriate comparison;
(b) In matters such as this, an expert should not normally be taken from
outside the country inasmuch as various confidential materials and data
would have to be shared with such expert to enable him to conduct the
exercise of comparison. If at a later point in time such material and data is
found to be in possession of any third parties, it would be impossible to hold
such a foreign expert responsible and the processes of the courts of the
country would not be able to reach such an expert and grant appropriate
relief.
(c) The matter as regards the scope of comparison having been concluded
by directions issued by the trial court on 4.05.2018 there was no occasion
for the trial court to expand the scope vide order dated 1.06.2018.
12
12. Mr. Gopal Jain, learned Senior Advocate who appeared for the
plaintiff, in reply submitted:
(a) The record indicated that the appointment and engagement of Mr.
Zeidman as an expert to undertake the task of comparison was accepted and
acquiesced in by the defendants. Various emails emanating from the
defendants were pressed into service in support of this submission.
(b) In any case, the process undertaken by the expert for comparison was
such that a separate laptop was to be used to make the appropriate
comparison. Such laptop would be without any internet connection and
would always be in the custody of the local commissioner. After the day’s
work regarding comparison, the entire material would be erased. These
precautionary steps would ensure that the data submitted by either of the
parties would not be compromised in any situation.
(c) The scope of the matter was rightly extended inasmuch as the
complaint of the plaintiff was not only based on registered copyright but also
under common law and as such it was the specific case of the plaintiff that
the earlier or antecedent versions of version 6.0 were also required to be
compared in order to place complete picture before the Court.
13
13. We have gone through the entire record and considered the rival
submissions. In our view, two issues arise for consideration:
(I) The propriety and correctness of the order appointing said Mr.
Zeidman as an expert in the mater; and
(II) Whether the scope of the comparison ought to be restricted to version
6.0 in respect of which the plaintiff has registered copyright.
14. As regards the first submission, we certainly do not approve the nature
of objection which was raised by the plaintiff when names of three reputed
institutions were suggested by the defendants. These institutions are of great
repute and standing and merely because one of the Advocates had studied in
those institutions was no ground to have any apprehension about impartiality
and integrity of those institutions. Secondly the professors whose names
were suggested are also individuals of great standing and repute. They are
experts in their field, specially in computer software and decoding of
software. If the idea was only to compare the software, we see no reason
how those experts could in any way be said to be lacking in requisite
experience in that behalf. This is not to suggest that Mr. Zeidman does not
have the requisite experience. The point is that the other professors were not
lacking in any way in terms of experience and standing. Be that as it may
since Mr. Zeidman was appointed, the correspondence and emails on record
14
suggest that such appointment was accepted by the defendants. The
defendants were in touch with said Mr. Zeidman to ensure how best the
exercise of comparison could be undertaken. The correspondence and
emails suggest that the appointment and engagement of said Mr. Zeidman
was not only accepted but the defendants had clearly acquiesced in such
arrangement. Mr. Gopal Jain, learned Senior Advocate is, therefore, right in
his submission that at this length of time, there would be no reason to upset
the arrangement. We, therefore, reject the submission of Mr. Rohtagi,
learned Senior Advocate and affirm the appointment of Mr. Zeidman as an
expert. The safety arrangements which have been put in place, as indicated
by Mr. Jain, learned Senior Advocate do ensure safety and security of the
data that may be exchanged by the parties in order to facilitate the task of
comparison. The objection raised by Mr. Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate
as regards security of the data therefore needs to be rejected. At this stage, a
clarification is necessary. The task entrusted to the expert is to compare the
respective softwares and make an appropriate report. Whether that amounts
to infringement or not is for the Courts to decide.
15. As regards the second issue, the case that was projected by the
plaintiff was undoubtedly based on the right emanating from registered
copyright and also under the rights in common law. But at the interim stage,
15
it was not the content and extent of the right under common law which was
gone into to consider whether prima facie case was established by the
plaintiff. The matter went on the aspect of registered copy right and rights
emanating thereunder. The trial court, therefore, was justified in restricting
comparison of the source code and object code in respect of the registered
version of the plaintiff vide its order dated 4.05.2018. That order was never
challenged by the plaintiff. Having accepted that order, there was no
occasion or reason for the plaintiff to seek expansion of the scope. The trial
court was in error in expanding the scope of the order by its order dated
1.06.2018. We therefore, accept the submission of Mr. Rohatgi, learned
Senior Advocate on this issue and direct that the comparison shall be
restricted to source code to object code in respect of registered version of the
plaintiff.
16. We now come to the last aspect which was dealt with in the order of
this Court on 16.07.2018. In terms of said order which was passed at the
instance of the defendants, the entire expenditure of to and fro passage of the
expert would be reimbursed by the defendants to the plaintiff in case the
challenge were to fail. However, out of two issues which arose for our
consideration, we have accepted the submission of the defendants as regards
second issue. We, therefore, direct the plaintiff to indicate the sum that it
16
had expended for to and fro passage of the expert within 3 days from the
date of this Judgment and one half of that amount shall be made over by the
defendants to the plaintiff within 7 days thereafter.
17. We make it clear that we have not gone into the factual controversy in
the matter and merits of the case shall be gone into uninfluenced by any
observations in this Judgment or in the Judgments under appeal.
18. With these observations present appeals stand disposed of. No costs,
apart from what has been indicated in the preceding paragraph.
………………………J.
(Abhay Manohar Sapre)
………………..……..J.
(Uday Umesh Lalit)
New Delhi,
July 30, 2018
Comments