Allowed

Real Image Media Technologies v. R.Karthikeyan

Madras HC18 Jan 2017CS/107/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court decreed suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant from infringing plaintiff's copyright over "QUBE" software and breaching a Non-Competition and Non-Disclosure Agreement after finding defendant joined a competitor and possessed source code.

What did the court decide?

Permanent injunction restraining defendant from infringing "QUBE" software copyright and breaching the Employee Non-Competition, Non-Disclosure and Proprietary Information Agreement.

Real Image Media Technologies Vs R.Karthikeyan — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON : 04.01.2017

¶4

PRONOUNCED ON: 18.01.2017

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶7

C.S.No.107 of 2011

¶8

Real Image Media Technologies Pvt.Ltd., represented by Authorised representative and Head Legal Mr.P.Murali Krishna No.7B, III Street, Balaji Nagar, Royapettah Chennai -600 014

.. Plaintiff

vs.

R.Karthikeyan

.. Defendant

Civil Suit filed under Order VII Rule VII of CPC and Rule IV of Original Side Rules to pass the following judgment and decree

¶14

(A) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his

¶15

men, agent/agents or any person claiming through or under the defendant, from in any manner infringing the Copyright of the plaintiff over the “QUBE” software.

¶16

¶17

(b) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant from breaching the “Employee Non – Competition, Non-Disclosure and Proprietary Information Agreement” dated 22.05.2006 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant

¶18

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner infringing the Copyright of the plaintiff company over the “QUBE” software and also for permanent injunction from breaching the “Employee Non– Competition, Non-Disclosure and Proprietary Information Agreement” dated 22.05.2006 entered into between the plaintiff company and the defendant.

¶21

¶22

2.The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff company are as follows:

¶23

The plaintiff company is in the business of providing digital cinema solutions to various cinema theatres/multiplexes/screens in malls within India and outside. The plaintiff has pioneered several technology revolutions over the last 25 years. It has helped in Indian cinema leapfrog a generation, from mono sound directly to digital sound. With its “QUBE CINEMA” end – to-end digital cinema product line, the first Indian company to play a pioneering role in this transformation, the plaintiff has made an impact worldwide with over 2,500 systems installed in 26 countries. The plaintiff “Qube” has been installed, many parts of the country. The nature of the plaintiff company business is not only specialized and sensitive, but is also competitive,with intellectual property being critical to provide a competitive business advantage. The defendant was appointed as a Software

¶24

¶25

Engineer by the plaintiff company on 24.4.2002 with certain terms and conditions. Thereafter, on 01.6.2004, the defendant was promoted to the post of “Software Engineer – Lead”.

¶26

2.1. According to the plaintiff company, the defendant was

¶27

later sent to U.S.A. on work by the plaintiff company and he was also sent to various conferences and workshops which enable him

¶28

to gain more knowledge and to improve his performance. Pursuant to the policy of the plaintiff company, aimed at safeguarding the plaintiff's interests, all employees of the plaintiff company were required to execute an “Employee NonCompetition, Non Disclosure and Proprietary Information Agreement” principally due to the nature of the business of the plaintiff company, especially with regard to intellectual properties and the need to maintain confidentiality and to prevent infringement/theft thereof. Such agreement was executed between the plaintiff company and the defendant on 22.05.2006. According to the terms agreed upon by the plaintiff company and

¶29

¶30

the defendant, the employee will not engage in the actions prohibited in Clause (i) through directly or indirectly, or being associated with any person or entity as owner, partner, employee, agent , consultant, direction, officer, stockholder or any other capacity or manner whatever.

¶31

2.2. Whileso, the defendant submitted a letter to relieve

¶32

him from the services of the plaintiff company on 27.11.2010 on the ground of personal reasons and the same was accepted by the plaintiff company on 12.01.2011. In the said acceptance letter, specific mention was made with regard to the Employee Non-Competition, Non-Disclosure and Proprietary Information Agreement. Further exit interview was conducted by the plaintiff on 11.01.2011 and the contents of the aforementioned agreement was also brought to the notice of the defendant on the said date. The defendant also confirmed the same by letter dated 12.01.2011.

¶33

¶34

2.3. It is the case of the plaintiff that a Corporate group by

¶35

name, Prasad Group is engaged inter alia in the business similar

¶36

to that of the plaintiff company. The plaintiff company and the said Prasad Group are healthy competitors. When the defendant, was leading the plaintiff company, the defendant was seen in the office premises of the said Prasad Group during the first week of February. The plaintiff company is also the registered owner of the “Qube Software” and the software features are invaluable product differentiator for the plaintiff company. It is the apprehension of the plaintiff company that the defendant may misuse the copy of the said Source Code and his knowledge of the plaintiff's product obtained in the course of his employment

¶37

with the plaintiff company. The plaintiff also confirmed the presence of the defendant in the competitors office. If the defendant discloses and utilised the vital information belonging to the plaintiff, this would ruin the plaintiff by nullifying all the hard work that went into the technology and superiority achieved by

¶38

¶39

the plaintiff company. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction.

¶40

The defendant remained ex parte. On the side of the plaintiff P.W.1, the authorised representative was examined and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. The details of the documents are hereunder:

¶41

Exhibits produced on the side of the plaintiff:

¶42

S. No	Exhibits	Date	Description of documents
1.	P-1	30.04.2010	The original resolution passed by the plaintiff company
2.	P-2	24.04.2011	The original appointment letter
3.	P-3	05.11.2002	The copy of the confirmation letter
4.	P-4	01.05.2004	The original promotion letter of the defendant
5.	P-5	22.05.2006	The Original non-disclosure and proprietary information agreement
6.	P-6	27.11.2010	The copy of e-mail relating to resignation
7.	P-7	12.01.2011	The copy of letter of acceptance
8.	P-8	12.01.2011	The original letter
9.	P-9	18.08.2010	The copy of application submitted before the Registrar of Copy Right
10.	P-10	12.09.2010	The acknowledgment

¶43

¶44

S. No	Exhibits	Date	Description of documents
11.	P-11	-	The Original Product literature of the plaintiff
12.	P-12	05.02.2011	The Original Private Investigator's report.

¶45

Witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiffs:

¶46

P.W.1. - P.Murali Krishna

¶47

Learned counsel for the plaintiff company submitted that

¶48

the defendant was appointed as a Software Engineer by the plaintiff company vide letter dated 24.04.2002 on certain terms and conditions. Subsequently, the defendant was promoted to the post of “Software Engineer – Lead”. The plaintiff also sent the defendant to various conferences and workshops which enabled the defendant to improve his knowledge and performance. The learned counsel for the plaintiff company further submitted that the defendant submitted a resignation letter and the same was accepted by the plaintiff company and the defendant was also informed about the Employee Non

¶49

¶50

-Competition, Non Disclosure and Proprietary Information Agreement dated 22.5.2006. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff company that the defendant had joined the services of one Prasad Group, which is healthy competitor of the plaintiff company. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the defendant had illegally copied the Source Code of the “QUBE SOFTWARE” and is in possession of the same. Since the defendant had acted in contravention of the above referred Employee Non-Competition, Disclosure and Proprietary Information Agreement, he is guilty of copyright infringement and theft of the intellectual properties of the plaintiff.

¶51

Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff company and perused the records.

¶52

P.W.1, who is the authorised representative of the plaintiff company, has given evidence about the ''QUBE SOFTWARE', including intellectual properties. He has also spoken

¶53

¶54

about the defendant's employment with the plaintiff company as well as the agreement entered into between them to maintain the confidential information with regard to the software technology. Evidence of P.W.1 further shows that the defendant under the pretext of appointment has gained knowledge with regard to the plaintiff's Source Code and left the office and joined with the plaintiff's competitor, namely, Prasad Group. The evidence of P.W.1 remain unchallenged.

¶55

From the records it is seen that Ex.P2, is the original appointment letter issued by the plaintiff company to the defendant. Ex.P3 the letter issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the plaintiff company, shows that service of the defendant was confirmed. Ex.P3 also proved the salary paid to the defendant. Ex.P5 is the original non-disclosure and Proprietary information agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant dated 22.05.2006, wherein the defendant has agreed to maintain confidential information with regard to the trade secrets and also

¶56

¶57

all work including the Intellectual Property in their business. Clause 6 of the agreement clearly shows that the employee shall neither pursue any business opportunity outside Company and nor take any position with any organisation other than Company without Company`s prior written approval. The above agreement has been signed by the defendant herein. Ex.P6 is the resignation letter sent by the defendant. In Ex.P7 the plaintiff company has informed about the contents of the Employee NonCompetition, Non -Disclosure and Proprietary Information Agreement. Ex.P7 also shows that exit interview was conducted by the plaintiff company to the defendant on 11.01.2011, wherein also the defendant was appraised of the aforesaid agreement. The defendant has also given confirmation that he has been briefed about the contents of the agreement referred to above, which is evident from Ex.P8. Ex.P9 is the application for registration of copyright “QUBE”. Ex.P11 is the brochure of the plaintiff company. Ex.P12 is the Private Investigation Report filed by the plaintiff company to show that the defendant was

¶58

¶59

seen in the plaintiff company's competitor Office.

¶60

From the pleadings made in the plaint as well as from the evidence of P.W.1., it could be seen that the plaintiff company's business is based on the Intellectual Property Rights and Software specifically designed for that and utmost confidence is required to sustain such business, particularly, when there are healthy competitors available for the said business. The defendant having entered into agreement to maintain such confidence about the trade marks, other secrets and Intellectual Property Rights, he cannot use the knowledge, which was derived from the plaintiff company, to the other company, which is said to be the competitor.

¶61

The defendant remained ex parte . From the evidence of P.W.1 and documents marked, particularly, the agreement entered into between the plaintiff company and the defendant, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff company is, certainly, entitled for injunction as prayed for, otherwise, there is every

¶62

¶63

likelihood of sharing the secret information of the plaintiff company's business to the other competitor. Accordingly, this Court hold that the plaintiff company has established its case.

¶64

In the result, the suit is decreed as prayed for.

¶65

ga 18..01..2017 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No

¶66

¶67

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J

C.S.No.107 of 2011

18..01..2017

http://www.judis.nic.in

Real Image Media Technologies v. R.Karthikeyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Real Image Media Technologies v. R.Karthikeyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.N.Shajahan Vs Mrs.K.Havva Beevi

Sikora Salvador International Vs M/S.Nanchil Latex Private Ltd.

Mrs.Amutha and 2 Others Vs C.Mahizhan and Another

G.Balaraman Vs G.Kupuswamy

M/S.Khivraj Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dr. Kayal Senthilnathan

K.Chandrasekaran Vs C.Shantha