it case law

8/18/2019 IT CASE LAW

1/16

University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun

SUBJECT: Information Technology

Case Analysis: Bharat Matrimony Com. P. Ltd.Vs. People Interactive (i) Pvt. Ltd7 Janary! "#$%.

Sumitted To: Sumitted By

Prof. Sampath Kumar Vanshika Agarwal

BBA LLB

Semester Xth

$


2/16

I!DE"

#$ C%SE TIT&E %!D I!T'(DUCTI(!)))))))))))))))$*

+$ %CTS)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-

*$ 'E&%TED P'(.ISI(!S)))))))))))))))))))))/

-$ 'E&%TED C%SES))))))))))))))))))))))))0/$ ISSUES)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))1

0$ %'2U3E!TS '(3 P&%I!TI4s SIDE)))))))))))))$5

1$ %'2U3E!TS '(3 DEE!D%!T4s SIDE))))))))))))$$#6

5$ JUD2E3E!T B7 8I28 C(U'T)))))))))))))))))#+

9$ JUD2E3E!T B7 SUP'E3E C(U'T)))))))))))))))#/

#6$ BIB&I(2'%P87))))))))))))))))))))))))$#0

C%SE TIT&E %!D I!T'(DUCTI(!

C%SE:

Bharat Matrimony Com. P. Lt. Vs. People !ntera"ti#e $i% P#t. Lt

MA&'()&(*+,-(//+0

"


3/16

Bench: Kurian 1oseph2 3ohinton 4ali &ariman

B8%'%T 3%T'I3(!7$C(3$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%PPE&&%!T

P.T$ &TD$

.E'SUS

PE(P&E I!TE'%CTI.E I;$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$'ESP(!DE!T

P.T$ &TD$

%CTS:

)hat the appli"ant2 who is a pioneer for matrimonial allian"e2 "reate a system0

5assure "onta"t6phone #erifi"ation ser#i"e5 through its employees uring the "ourse of

employment.

)he appli"ation plaintiff has 7e"ome the owner an proprietor of the "opyright in the

system whi"h is in7uilt in the appli"ant5s we7site.

&


4/16

)he appli"ant spent se#eral lakhs of rupees e#eloping an implementing the uni8ue

feather 5assure "onta"t6phone #erifi"ation seryi"s. )he uni8ue feature has 7e"ome5

synonymous with the appli"ant5s we7site 7harat matrimony "om.

)he responent5s we7site is a ire"t "ompetitor of the appli"ant5s we7site uner the

name 5my "onta"t etails5. the responent is offering the #ery same ienti"al feature tothe "ustomers. the same step 7y step pro"eure is aopte 7y the responent.

)hese appli"ations are file seeking a interim in9un"tion restraining the responents

from infringing of "opyrights an from passing off their 5Phone Valiation Ser#i"es5 as

that of the plaintiffs ser#i"e.

'E&%TED P'(.ISI(!S:

s$ #0Co


5/16

&o person shall 7e entitle to "opyright or any similar right in any work2 whether pu7lishe

or unpu7lishe2 otherwise than uner an in a""oran"e with the pro#isions of this A"t or any

other law for the time 7eing in for"e2 7ut nothing in this se"tion shall 7e "onstru"te as

a7rogating any right or 9urisi"tion to restrain a 7rea"h of trust or "onfien"e.

s$ #1Co in the "ase of a work mae or first pu7lishe 7y or uner the

ire"tion or "ontrol of any pu7li" unertaking2 su"h pu7li" unertaking shall2 in the a7sen"e

of any agreement to the "ontrary2 7e the first owner of the "opyright therein. [email protected]

4or the purposes of this "lause an se"tion +A2 pu7li" unertaking means6 $i% an

unertaking owne or "ontrolle 7y =o#ernment0 or $ii% a =o#ernment "ompany as efine

in se"tion -* of the Companies A"t2 *,-0 or $iii% a 7oy "orporate esta7lishe 7y or uner

any Central2 Pro#in"ial or State A"t0< $e% in the "ase of a work to whi"h the pro#isions of

se"tion D* apply2 the international organisation "on"erne shall 7e the first owner of the

"opyright therein.

'E&%TED C%SES:


6/16

=ee Entertainment Enterendra Singh and (thers +661

Indla? 3U3 /#9#

Urmi Juve@ar Chiang, Indian Inhaitant, 3umai v #; 2loal Broadcast !e?s

&imited, Uttar PradeshA +; !et?or@ #5 inca< Private &imited, Uttar Pradesh

+661 Indla? 3U3 #/*,+

Barara Taylor Bradford v Sahara 3edia Entertainment &imited +66* Indla?

C%& #+/, *

%nil 2u


7/16

These applications are filed seeking ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from

infringing of copyrights and from passing off their "Phone Validation Services" as that of the

plaintiffs service.

%'2U3E!TS '(3 P&%I!TI4s SIDE

7


8/16

)he appli"ants(plaintiffs ha#e "ontene in their appli"ations that the appli"ant2 who

is a pioneer for matrimonial allian"e2 "reate a system0 5Assure Conta"t6Phone

Verifi"ation Ser#i"e5 through its employees uring the "ourse of employment.

)he appli"ation plaintiff has 7e"ome the owner an proprietor of the "opyright in the

system whi"h is in7uilt in the appli"ant5s we7site. )he appli"ant spent se#eral lakhs of

rupees e#eloping an implementing the uni8ue feather 5Assure Conta"t6Phone

Verifi"ation Seryi"s.

)he uni8ue feature has 7e"ome5 synonymous with the appli"ant5s we7site Bharat

Matrimony "om. )he responent5s we7site is a ire"t "ompetitor of the appli"ant5s

we7site uner the name 5My Conta"t Eetails5.

)he responent is offering the #ery same ienti"al feature to the "ustomers. )he same

step 7y step pro"eure is aopte 7y the responent in its we7site2 sla#ishly imitatingthe appli"ant5s uni8ue feature.

)he responent "annot la#ishly "opy the features of the appli"ant whi"h was in#ente

an "on"eptualie 7y it. )he responent is misleaing the mem7ers of the pu7li"

utiliing the aforesai uni8ue feature in the "ourse of its trae. )he appli"ant has

suffere irrepara7le loss an amage to its 7usiness on a""ount of the wrongful

a"ti#ity of the responent.

)he appli"ant is the first owner of the "opyright in the Computer Programme for their

uni8ue ser#i"e. )herefore2 the appli"ant has sought for the aforesai reliefs.

• Learne Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants woul su7mit that the

responent2 who has hi9a"ke the "ore iea of the system e#elopment using the

!ntera"ti#e Voi"e 3esponse2 has set up an ienti"al platform "ausing huge loss to the

7usiness of the appli"ant.

• )he "opyrights of the mark illustrate has 7een utilise 7y the responent ha#ing

gi#en a go67y to their outmoe system with some "osmeti" "hanges to the 5Assure

Conta"t6Phone Verifi"ation System5.

• )he appli"ant woul "onten that making use of the se"urity system2 !V3 an a

software2 a new system "alle 5Assure Contra"t6Phone Verifi"ation Ser#i"e5 was

mae 7y its employees whi"h has 7e"ome the property of the appli"ant

• )herefore2 the learne Counsel appearing for the appli"ant woul su7mit that the

sla#ish imitation of the system in#ente 7y the appli"ant is an infringement of the

"opyright a"8uire 7y the appli"ant in#esting so mu"h of money on its employees.

)herefore2 he woul su7mit that the appli"ant is entitle to the relief as sought for.


9/16

%'2U3E!TS '(3 DEE!D%!T4s SIDE

• The respondent has contended that the applicant's 'Assured Contact-Phone Verification

Services' does not fall within the defined category of protected work under the Copyright

Act.

*


10/16

• The copyright protection does not extend to any idea procedure process syste!

!ethod of operation concept principle invention of discovery regardless of the for! in

which it is descri"ed illustrated or e!"odied.• The applicant failed to identify the particular e!ployee who purportedly created the

'Assured Contract-Phone Verification Service'. #o affidavit was filed "y the e!ployee who allegedly invented to show pri!a facie the authorship of the syste! service.

$nteractive Voice %esponse &$V% syste! is nothing "ut a syste! where a user hears a

recorded voice after dialing a particular nu!"er and presses an appropriate "utton in

accordance with the instructions provided "y the recorded voice.

(any Corporates are "roadly using the $V% syste!. The collection of personal

infor!ation of person seeking to "eco!e a !e!"er of a we"site is not either innovative

or an i!prove!ent of custo!er friendliness.

This is )ust a !atter of co!!on sense and is a standard practice of all we"site and online

service providers. Therefore the respondent has sought for dis!issal of the aforesaid

applications.

Mrs. &alini Chiam7aram2 learne Senior Counsel appearing for the responents

woul su7mit that no iea or "on"ept "an 7e "opyrighte. )here is no uni8ueness in

the pro"eure aopte 7y the appli"ant. )he Corporate Se"tors an Banking !nustries

are la#ishly using the !V3 system.

• As rightly pointe out 7y the learne Senior Counsel appearing for the responent2 a

se"urity system employe 7y the appli"ant "annot 7e hel as the uni8ue inno#ation of

the appli"ant through its employees. Likewise2 the !V3 system whi"h is la#ishly use

7y the Corporates2 Banking !nustries2 3ailways2 et". "annot 7e monopolie 7y the

appli"ant on the groun that the !V3 system was use to "reate a no#el system "alle

5Assure Contra"t6Phone Verifi"ation System5 7y the appli"ant. !V3 system is a

stanarie one whi"h "an 7e o7taine 7y any person from software #enors in the

"ountry on payment of ne"essary fee.

!f the appli"ant is permitte to monopolie su"h a "ommon system2 there will not 7e

any in#ention in the future Computer Programmes. Su"h a pro"eure will ha#e to 7e

ne"essarily ahere to "ater to the nees of the pu7li" who seek matrimonial allian"e.

4urther2 the pro"eure 7eing followe 7y the responent is not the photo"opy of the

system followe 7y the appli"ant.

)herefore2 she woul su7mit that the appli"ations are lia7le to 7e ismisse $

$#


11/16

JUD2E3E!T ( T8E 8I28 C(U'T:

!t appears that there is nothing uni8ue in the system "alle 5Assure Conta"t6Phone

Verifi"ation System5 allege to ha#e 7een "reate 7y the employees of the appli"ant. !f su"h a

"ommon system whi"h is in #ogue is permitte to 7e monopolie 7y one ini#iual2 the

growth of su"h systems will 7e 9eoparie. 4urther2 the iea or "on"ept of su"h Computer

Programmes "annot 7e "opyrighte.

$$


12/16

)he learne Senior Counsel appearing for the appli"ant referre to an authority in Anil =upta

#. Kunal Easgupta , )hat was a "ase where the "on"ept e#elope an e#ol#e 7y the

plaintiff on "ir"ulation to the efenant was appropriate 7y the efenant #iolating the

"onfientiality as re"ognie uner Se"tion *-- of the Copyrights A"t2 *,. A "on"ept

e#ol#e for a )V reality show whi"h was registere uner the Copyrights A"t will ha#e to 7e

prote"te from pu7li" omain2 it has 7een hel therein. !n the instant "ase2 a "on"ept in a

Computer Programmes is sought to 7e "opyrighte. 4urther2 it is not a "ase where the "on"ept

was e@"hange 7y the "opyright owner with the responent. )herefore2 the aforesai

authority oes not apply to the fa"ts an "ir"umstan"es of the "ase.

Fn a perusal of the other authority in 'rmi 1u#ekar Chian #. =lo7al Broa"ast &ews Lt. an

Anr.it is foun that in a similar "ase2 the Bom7ay Gigh Court has taken an ienti"al #iew.

)hat was also a "ase where there was 7rea"h of "onfientiality in relation to a "on"ept whi"h

was hane o#er to the efenants.

!n yet another "ase in Celaor Prou"tions Lt. #. =aura# Mehrotra+ a form of telephone 8ui

programme "alle Kaun Banega Crorepati was hi9a"ke 7y the efenant. )he Court2 ha#ing

foun that the logos2 names an ienti"al photographs of the presenter of the efenant was

e"epti#ely foun similar to that of the plaintiff2 grante an orer of in9un"tion. !n the instant

"ase2 a "ommon "on"ept whi"h is in #ogue in the Corparate Se"tor is sought to 7e

"opyrighte.

*D. !n Hee ?ntertainment ?nterprises Lt. #. =a9enra Singh an Frs. 2 the Bom7ay Gigh

Court negati#e the plaintiffs "laim for "opyright o#er a "inematograph film em7oying

A!3//Eelhi>

% +o copyri,ht e-cept as provided in this Act.+o person shall /e entitled tocopyri,ht or any similar ri,ht in any 0or1! 0hether p/lished or np/lished!

other0ise than nder and in accordance 0ith the provisions o2 this Act or o2 any

other 2or the time /ein, in 2orce! /t nothin, in this section shall /e constred as

a/ro,atin, any ri,ht or 3risdiction to restrain a /reach o2 trst or con4dence.

7 ("##7)$#*B5ML6*$

: *%("##")L8'&

* ("##7)$#*B5ML6"#7"

$"


13/16

tele#ision game show as it was foun that the plaintiff "oul not esta7lish that the film of the

game was prepare 7y the first efenant uring his employment uner the plaintiff. But2 the

fa"ts an "ir"umstan"es of the aforesai "ase is totally ifferent from the fa"t situation arisen

in this "ase.

)he '.S. Court of Appeals2 )hir Cir"uit2 in its 9ugment in Ihelan Asso"iates !n". #. 1aslow

Eental La7oratory !n".2 ?) AL eli#ere on August D2 *+-2 has hel that the mere iea or

"on"ept of a Computerie Programme for operating a ental la7oratory woul not in an of

itself 7e su79e"t to "opyright. Copyright law prote"ts the manner in whi"h the author

e@presses an !ea or "on"ept2 7ut not the iea itself.

*-. )herefore2 the appli"ant herein "annot "laim "opyright for his iea or "on"ept. 4urther2 itis foun that the appli"ant5s iea or "on"ept oes not ha#e uni8ueness or originality.

)he Cal"utta Gigh Court in Bar7ara )aylor Brafor #. Sahara Meia ?ntertainment Lt. :

//D$*%CG&DD+ has hel that the law prote"ts only the originality of e@pression. But2 su"h

original of artisti" works shall not 7e o#erprote"te "ur7ing own the future artisti" works.

)here is a "a#eat that if plots an "hara"ters are allowe to 7e prote"te 7y "opyright2 original

artist "oul not write anything 5original5 at all.

*+. )he Court fins in the instant "ase that there appears to 7e no originality of e@pression in

the system allege to ha#e 7een aopte 7y the appli"ant.

*. !n Kenri"k an Co. #. Lawren"e an Co. */2 it has 7een "ategori"ally hel as follows:

)he first 8uestion whi"h arises is2 what is an what is not the nature of the right "onferre

uner the A"t upon the author 7y the registration of the rawing of whi"h he is the author. !t

is perhaps easier to say what it is not than to gi#e a satisfa"tory efinition of what it is2 an !

think that ! am upon #ery safe groun in saying that the mere "hoi"e of su79e"t "an rarely2 if

e#er2 "onfer upon the author of the rawing an e@"lusi#e right to represent the su79e"t2 an

"ertainly where the su79e"t "hosen is merely the representation to the eye of a simple

operation whi"h must 7e performe 7y e#ery person who re"ors a #ote there "annot possi7ly

7e an e@"lusi#e right to represent in a pi"ture that operation.

$# ($*#) L.6. " 9.B.. **

$&


14/16

A simple operation whi"h "oul 7e performe 7y another person for that matter "annot 7e

"opyrighte. ?#ery matrimonial we7site has to aheres to this sort of simple operation whi"h

"annot 7e monopolie.

)he appli"ant has faile to esta7lish prima fa"ie that an ienti"al platform using !ntera"ti#e

Voi"e 3esponse2 a uni8ue one e#elope 7y its employee was imitate 7y the responent.

After all2 it is only an iea or "on"ept whi"h "annot 7e "opyrighte.

4urther2 the matrimonial. "om is 7oun to use su"h a "ommon system to "ater to the nees of

the matrimonial allian"e seekers. A #ery Common !V3 system whi"h is in #ogue in the other

Corporate Se"tors an Banking !nustries has 7een use in the 5Assure Contra"t6Phone

Verifi"ation System5 aopte 7y the appli"ant.

!n #iew of the a7o#e2 the Court fins that the appli"ant has faile to esta7lish a prima fa"ie

"ase for grant of temporary in9un"tion as sought for. !f temporary in9un"tion is grante in

fa#our of the appli"ant uring the penen"y of the suit2 mu"h harship will 7e "ause to the

7usiness of the responent. )he 7alan"e of "on#enien"e is foun only in fa#our of the

responent.

)herefore 7oth appli"ations stan ismisse.

$'


15/16

JUD2E3E!T B7 SUP'E3E C(U'T (! 7 January, 2016

$t has "een "rought to our notice that the parties have a!ica"ly settled the disputes. The *oint (e!o

of Settle!ent dated +,.++.,+ has "een filed "efore this Court on +/.++.,+. The ter!s of Settle!entread as follows0

1&a Appellant shall use the certificate granted to it "y the 2i!ca %ecords as defined in the certificate

and shall not !ake any contrary state!ent.

&" The Appellant agrees to use the following state!ent in its we"site3!arketing co!!unications0

14eatured in the 2i!ca 5ook of %ecords for record nu!"er of docu!ented !arriages online6

&c That the parties herein shall file the a"ove ter!s of settle!ent "efore the 7on'"le Supre!e Courtand shall re8uest the court hearing the Appeal "earing C.A.#o.+3,,9 to dispose of the appeal in

ter!s of the said consent ter!s.

&d The %espondent shall close3withdraw co!plaint "earing co!plaint #o. :TP +,3,,9 filed against

the Appellant "efore the (%TP Co!!ission &now Co!petition Co!!ission of $ndia

&e The parties agree that they shall have no clai! against each other now or in future on the sa!e

ground !entioned in the present Appeal and or the :TP Co!plaint #;.+,3,,9.

&f The parties shall "ear their own costs.6

. The appeal is disposed of in ter!s of the Settle!ent entered "etween the parties. #o costs.

$


16/16

BIB&I(2'%P87:

e:

• http:ir.in;i/net.ac.in:##3spi/itstream$#%#&%'$'$'$'matrimony>com>p>ltd>vs>

people>interactive• https:indian1anoon.or,doc%*'

• http:3dis.nic.inspremecortim,st.asp-?4lename@'&"&*

• 000.0estla0.com

• 000.scconline.com

• http:000.le-isne-is.com

Boo@s:

• CJB?3 LAIS BJ 1usti"e Jatiner Singh• CJB?3 C3!M?S LAIS BJ Amita Verma

$%
http://ir.inflibnet.ac.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/10603/64184/14/14_chapter%207.pdfhttp://ir.inflibnet.ac.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/10603/64184/14/14_chapter%207.pdfhttps://www.legalcrystal.com/case/832756/bharat-matrimony-com-p-ltd-vs-people-interactivehttps://www.legalcrystal.com/case/832756/bharat-matrimony-com-p-ltd-vs-people-interactivehttps://indiankanoon.org/doc/586984/http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=43239http://www.westlaw.com/http://www.scconline.com/https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/832756/bharat-matrimony-com-p-ltd-vs-people-interactivehttps://www.legalcrystal.com/case/832756/bharat-matrimony-com-p-ltd-vs-people-interactivehttps://indiankanoon.org/doc/586984/http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=43239http://www.westlaw.com/http://www.scconline.com/http://ir.inflibnet.ac.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/10603/64184/14/14_chapter%207.pdfhttp://ir.inflibnet.ac.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/10603/64184/14/14_chapter%207.pdf

it case law

Documents