Disposed

Kips Learning Private Limited v. Abhay Dogra & Anr.

Delhi HC8 May 2024CS(COMM)/332/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Copyright infringement suit over defendant's 'IT KODE' school computer books allegedly copying plaintiff's publications. Defendant deleted the disputed sentences and asserted originality; plaintiff sought no further relief. Suit disposed of on recorded undertakings; pending applications infructuous; 50% court fee refund ordered.

What did the court decide?

Suit disposed of on parties' statements/undertakings with settlement terms kept confidential; all pending applications infructuous; 50% court fees refunded to plaintiff.

Kips Learning Private Limited Vs Abhay Dogra & Anr. — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CS(COMM) 332/2021, I.A. 8737/2021, I.A. 11442/2021, I.A. 12201/2021, I.A. 2126/2022, I.A. 17561/2022, I.A. 17562/2022, I.A. 18911/2022, I.A. 18912/2022 & I.A. 13151/2023

¶4

KIPS LEARNING PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff

¶5

Through: Mr. Rahul Beruar, Mrs. Nidhi Jain, Ms. Jyotsana Sinha, Mr. Deepesh Bhardwaj, Ms. Manini Sidhu and Ms. Akanksha Satpathy, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

ABHAY DOGRA & ANR. ..... Defendants

¶8

Through: Mr. Himanshu Suman and Mr. Sudhanshu Suman, Advocates for D- 1.

¶9

Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, Ms. Riya, Seth and Mr. Varun Chandiok, Advocates for D-2.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶11

O R D E R % 08.05.2024

¶12

The matter was listed for hearing in I.A. 13151/2023, moved on behalf of defendant no.2 under Order XIII-A of Civil Code of Procedure, 1908 (“ CPC ”) seeking summary judgment against plaintiff.

¶13

Counsels have been heard and it transpired that the suit was filed in the following context.

¶14

Plaintiff is an Indian company with its office at Kolkata, West Bengal and is in the business of Computer Education Publishing since 1995.

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/05/2024 at 11:18:38

¶17

Grievance was against defendant no.2 for publishing a series of books titled ‘IT KODE’ which comprise 06 books for Classes III to VIII and that defendant no.2 had used substantial extracts of plaintiff’s publications, for the said books.

¶18

It is noted that this Court had directed plaintiff to place on record portions of the book of defendant no.2 which infringed the copyright of plaintiff on 06^th August, 2021 and 11^th November, 2021; however, plaintiff’s counsel stated that it was not possible for them to extract each and every aspect of the book, which according to them have been copied by defendant no.2. However, counsel for defendant no.2 states that without the said detail they could not have responded to the allegations.

¶19

However, without prejudice to their contention that they have not copied the same, they removed the following sentences from certain volumes as detailed under:

¶20

“a. IT Kode- Book 6- Page 103; (9 Sentences);

¶21

b. IT Kode- Book 6- Page 104; (9 Sentences);

¶22

c. IT Kode- Book 6- Page 105- 106; (8 Sentences in Page No. 105 and working process of tools also been rephrased in page no. 106);

¶23

d. IT Kode- Book 6- Page 108; (3 Sentences and a somewhat similar image);

¶24

e. IT Kode- Book 6- Page 109; (6 Sentences);

¶25

f. IT Kode- Book 6- Page 110 and 111; (Rephrased two paras);

¶26

g. IT Kode- Book 8- Page 10; (3 Sentences of WAN topic); h. IT Kode- Book 7 (replacing the alleged screenshots); i. IT Kode- Book 4 & 7 (alleged Topics, Big Data, Block Chain, NLP);

¶27

j. IT Kode- Book 8- Page 12; (3 Sentences of Ring Topology)”

¶28

Counsel for defendant no.2, states on instructions, that there is

¶29

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/05/2024 at 11:18:38

¶30

absolutely no copyright infringement and they own the copyright in their own publications. He further states on instructions, that they do not infringe copyright of plaintiff’s publications and their works are original in their own right.

¶31

Counsel for plaintiff acknowledges that these deletions did take place and they have no objection to the replaced publications. Based on the statement of counsel for defendant no. 2, counsel for plaintiff seeks no further relief.

¶32

Taking on record the undertaking/statements by both parties, the suit is accordingly, disposed of. All pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.

¶33

Since the matter has been settled basis the statements made by counsel on instructions, it is agreed by counsels that the terms of the settlement be kept confidential by the parties.

¶34

In view of settlement between the parties, 50% of Court fees be refunded to counsel for plaintiff as per Section 16A of Court Fees Act, 1870. 11. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶35

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶36

MAY 8, 2024/ MR/na

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/05/2024 at 11:18:38

Kips Learning Private Limited v. Abhay Dogra & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kips Learning Private Limited v. Abhay Dogra & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs John Doe and Others

Exxon Mobil Corporation Vs M/S Bike Zone / Siddhivinayak Autoline & Ors.

Cipla Limited Vs Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Limited

Dabur India Limited Vs Ashok Kumar and Others

Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs Mr. Sanjay Sharma

Phi Learning Private Ltd. Vs Ubs Publishers Distributors Pvt. Ltd.

Choice Hotels International, Inc. Vs Oravel Stays Private Limited & Ors.

The Foundry Visionmongers Limited Vs Vaw World Innovation Private Limited & Ors.

Exxon Mobil Corporation Vs M/S Bike Zone / Siddhivinayak Autoline & Ors.

Jss Ventures Vs Kunwarpreet Singh Juneja and Anr.

Dabur India Limited Vs Ashok Kumar and Others

Pfizer Inc. & Ors. Vs Nagesh Palepu & Ors.

Alphavector India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Sach Industries & Ors.

Choice Hotels International, Inc. Vs Oravel Stays Private Limited & Ors.