Dismissed

Microsoft Corpn. v. Rdp Workstations Pvt. Ltd.

Madras HC16 Nov 2023CS/378/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil suit concerning alleged copyright infringement, the plaintiffs filed a declaration and prayer for a permanent injunction and damages. During proceedings, the plaintiffs sought and obtained the court's permission to withdraw the suit, leading to its dismissal and the closure of a connected application.

What did the court decide?

Suit dismissed as withdrawn; connected application closed.

Microsoft Corpn. Vs Rdp Workstations Pvt. Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.S. No.378 of 2013 and O.A. No.421 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 16.11.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

C.S. No.378 of 2013 and O.A. No.421 of 2013

¶7

1.Microsoft Corporation,

¶8

represented by its duly constituted and Authorised Power of Attorney

¶9

Jaideep Singh Kochar

¶10

2.Microsoft Corporation India Private Limited, represented by its duly constituted and Authorised Power of Attorney Jaideep Singh Kochar

¶11

.. Plaintiffs

¶12

(amended as per order dated 20.04.2021 in A.No.1475 of 2021)

¶13

/versus/

¶14

1.RDP Workstations Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Chairman/ Managing Director/Directors

¶15

2.Gaurav Jha

¶16

.. Defendants

¶17

Prayer: Civil Suit has been filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and Order VII, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. read with Sections 2, 17, 51 and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 to grant a decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiffs on the following terms:

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

1/4

¶20

C.S. No.378 of 2013 and O.A. No.421 of 2013

¶21

a)a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, jointly and severally its proprietors/directors/partners, officers, servants and agents and all others acting for and on its behalf from using or otherwise copying, reproducing, installing/selling, offering for sale, distributing, hard-disk loading, issuing to the public, counterfeit/pirated/unlicensed versions of Microsoft Windows embedded operating systems software and any other software programs of the plaintiffs' in any manner whatsoever amounting to infringement of the plaintiffs' copyrights in the said software programs and related manuals;

¶22

b)the defendants, jointly and severally be directed to deliver up to the plaintiffs of all the counterfeit/pirated/unlicensed copies of the plaintiffs' software programs and/or articles/software, the duplicating equipment used in the copying/reproducing the software programs of the plaintiffs, including thin clients, computers, compact disc writers, stampers, replicators, burners, "plates" as defined in Section 2(t) of the Act, hard disks, diskettes, packaging and advertising material, labels, stationery articles and all other infringing material under Section 58 of the Act, which pertain to Microsoft Windows embedded operating systems and any other software program of the plaintiffs;

¶23

c)a preliminary decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs directing the defendants to render a true and faithful account of all profits illegally earned by the defendants by reason of the infringement of the plaintiffs' copyrights in Microsoft Windows embedded operating systems and any other software program of the plaintiffs and a final decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs for the amount of profits thus found to have been

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

2/4

¶26

C.S. No.378 of 2013 and O.A. No.421 of 2013

¶27

made by the defendants along with conversion damages, loss of sales and reputation caused to the plaintiffs, as to be ascertained/determined in these proceedings by this Court with interest, after the defendants has rendered accounts;

¶28

d)the defendants jointly and severally be ordered to pay to the plaintiffs, damages of Rs.25 lakhs on account of infringement by the defendants of the copyrights of the plaintiffs as subsisting in their software programs such as Microsoft Windows embedded operating systems and any other software of the plaintiffs in addition to the relief sought for in paragraph 34(c) above.

¶29

For plaintiffs : Mr.Muthukumar for

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

A memo dated 07.11.2023 has been filed by the learned counsel

¶32

for the plaintiffs seeking permission of this Court to withdraw this suit.

¶33

2.After recording the Memo dated 07.11.2023, this suit is

¶34

dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected Application is closed.

No costs.

vga

16.11.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

3/4

¶40

C.S. No.378 of 2013 and O.A. No.421 of 2013

¶41

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶42

vga

¶43

C.S. No.378 of 2013 and O.A. No.421 of 2013

¶44

16.11.2023

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

4/4

Microsoft Corpn. v. Rdp Workstations Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Microsoft Corpn. v. Rdp Workstations Pvt. Ltd.

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

M/S Roca Bathroom Products Limited, Vs Evolve Bath and Living Pvt.,Ltd.

M/S Carborundum Universal Limited Vs Selvam Hardwares.

Sun T.v.Network Limited Vs Phanindra Kumar and 2 Others

M/s. Godaddy.com Llc Vs Puravankara Projects Ltd. and another

Mr.D.Deva Vigins Vs Mr.Miten B.Chhadva

Mrf Limited Vs Karpaga Vinayagar Tyres