M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J:— This is an appeal preferred by defendants 1 & 2 against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge in I.A Nos. 11853/94, 1563/95, 1564/95, 12043/95 in Suit No. 2852/94 dated 20.5.1996 granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and against the appellants. By that order the learned Single Judge restrained the appellants from infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs and from un-authorisedly and unlawfully copying the electrical/electronic circuits, network and design of the plaintiffs. The learned Single Judge found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for grant of such an injunction and that the balance of convenience was also in their favour. This appeal is preferred by the defendants 1, 2 against the said order of injunction.
2. The following facts have to be stated for appreciating the dispute between the parties. The 1st plaintiff Puneet Industrial Controls Private Ltd. (1st respondent) and its proprietor, Mr. Prem Dua, is the 2nd plaintiff (2nd respondent). The 1st defendant (1st appellant) is Classic Electronics and its proprietor is Mr. H.B Chanana. 2nd plaintiff is Mr. Sanjay Chanana, who is the son of Mr. H.B Chanana. The said Mr. Sanjay Chanana is the first cousin of Mr. Prem Dua. Mr. Prem Dua had passed B. Tech in Electrical and Electronics from IIT, Delhi in 1971. He worked for some time in an industry manufacturing electronic relays. He noticed that certain electronic circuits and designs could be further improved inasmuch as the existing ones blacked requisite technical efficiency and durability. Mr. Prem Dua did research for 2 years and redesigned the electric and electronic circuits and design lay out of the produce, thus increasing the efficiency and durability of the products. The Printed Circuit Board(PCB) and the electric circuits and electronic circuits developed and designed and used by Mr. Prem Dua are, according to him, unique and are not comparable to that of any other manufacturer of electronic relays. Photographs showing the product design of the electric and electronic circuits and the EPOXY scaling used by Mr. Prem Dua for 4 of his products, namely, electronic timers, volt relays and frequency relays and engine relays are filed as Annexure A (collectively). Each of the product photograph also contains an identical product of the appellants/defendants to enable comparison and decision regarding the allegation that the appellant, Mr. Chanana, had copied the systems invented by the plaintiffs/respondents. The appellants, according to the plaintiffs, had copied the product design and electric/electronic circuits on the Printed Circuit Board(PCB). In the year 1975 Mr. Prem Dua established Puneet Industrial Controls (predecessor of 1st plaintiff company) and started manufacturing a broad range of electronic relays which found good market on account of their technical and operational efficiency, reliability and durability. In 1978 the plaintiffs specialised in technical aspects pertaining to electric relays for diesel run generator sets. Plaintiffs products were being sold under the trade mark. “PIC”. The “PIC” was also registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act on 26.2.1990 by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs circuits and designs had been given a life time guarantee to the plaintiffs' customers. In 1980 Puneet Industrial Controls was converted into a private limited company under the name Puneet Industrial Controls Private Limited (2nd plaintiff).
3. The 2nd appellant, Mr. Sanjay Chanana, who is the first cousin of the 2nd plaintiff, Mr. Prem Dua, passed only Diploma in Mechanical Engineering in 1987 and came to Mr. Prem Dua for employment. Because of close family relationship, Mr. Prem Dua took him into his employment and later on even went to the extent of making the said Mr. Sanjay Chanana set up a small independent unit under the trade name Hi Tech Controls to manufacture voltage stabilizers and shock protectors, which were also being manufactured as part of the plaintiffs' industry. But Mr. Sanjay Chanana was not very much successful and when he came to the 2nd plaintiff, Mr. Prem Dua in April, 1991, Mr. Prem Dua established Dua Power Controls, which also sold its goods under the trade name “PIC, and Mr. Sanjay Chanana was entrusted right from April, 1991 with the duty of managing entire production operation of electronic relays.
4. In November, 1994 Mr. Sanjay Chanana, 2nd appellant left the services of the plaintiffs and it was later discovered that he was indulging in unlawfully and un-authorisedly selling to others the plaintiffs' drawings, photographs, hardware and trade secrets. Letters written by third parties to Mr. Sanjay Chanana dated 20.5.1994 and 23.5.1994 are filed as Annexure ‘F’ along with the plaint. When the plaintiff tried to correct Mr. Sanjay Chanana, it is stated, he tried to create some labour problems for the plaintiffs. Mr. Sanjay Chanana then set up the 1st appellant firm called Classic Electronics making his father Mr. H.B Chanana as proprietor, but in reality Mr. Sanjay Chanana was the real proprietor. This is clear from the letter dated 15.11.1994, Annexure ‘G’ written by a third party to the 2nd defendant.
5. The plaintiffs, therefore, relied upon the provisions of copyright act defining the “artistic work”, “literary work”, and “infringing copy”, as defined in Sections 2(c), 2(a) and 2(m) of the Copyright Act and filed the present suit. A detailed comparison of the copyrighted features by way of photographs is filed as Annexure ‘H’. A detailed comparison of the descriptive literature used by the appellants/defendants to describe their products was also filed along with the plaint as Annexure T to show the infringement of the artistic and literary work of the plaintiffs. In the suit an injunction was sought for to restrain the appellants from manufacturing and selling the infringing materials and for restraining them from infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs in the artistic work and literary work and from passing on to any other person the said material regarding electronic circuits encompassed in EPOXY sealing.
6. The above are the facts as set out in the plaint and we have also referred to various annexures filed by the respondents/plaintiffs along with the plaint.
7. The appellants/defendants contended in their written statement that the 2nd defendant was an engineer and that he did take the help of Mr. Prem Dua, 2nd plaintiff. It is contended that the defendants were manufacturing certain products and that the 2nd plaintiff was trying to take advantage by copying the products of the defendants. It is, however, admitted that the integrated circuits was the central component and was encompassed in EPOXY sealing and the said sealing was put to protect the said PIC and to keep it away from the eyes of the competitors. It was also contended that the designs of the plaintiffs should have been registered under the Designs Act, 1911 and were not so registered. It is also stated that they had manufactured thousands of units. It is admitted that Mr. Sanjay Chanana had parted company, with Mr. Prem Dua in MAY, 1994. The reason given was that Mr. Prem Dua did not pay him for the products manufactured by him and therefore, Mr. Sanjay Chanana had to leave the plaintiffs company. It was also contended that there was no infringement of the artistic or literary works of the plaintiffs.
8. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a replication disputing the allegations made by the appellants in their written statement. They also filed annexures showing that the plaintiffs were giving guarantee to their products to the customers.
9. The learned Single Judge took up the injunction application filed by the plaintiffs and came to the conclusion that the rights of the respondents/plaintiffs in respect of literary and artistic works were infringed by the appellants. He held that the appellants had made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was also in their favour. So far as the plea regarding registration under the Designs Act is concerned, the plaintiffs pointed out that they had in fact applied for registration, but it was refused by the authorities on the ground that the matter did not come under the purview of the Designs Act and that hence appellants cannot raise that objection.
10. The learned Single Judge after perusing the Annexures A to I filed by the plaintiffs along with the plaint, which included the comparative statement-of the plaintiffs' products and circuits with the drawings and circuits of the appellants, came to the conclusion that the circuits and drawings prepared by the appellants were identical with those of the plaintiffs and, therefore, there was a prima facie case. Learned single Judge also observed that the 2nd plaintiff was an IIT B. Tech of 1971, that he did research for 2 years and prepared those drawing and circuits which were of a special nature and which improved the efficiency and durability of the products and that the 2nd appellant was employed by the 2nd plaintiff from 1991 to 1994 and, thereafter started the 1st appellant company by using the models of circuits of the plaintiffs and, therefore, there was a clear infringement of literary and artistic work of the plaintiffs.
11. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the plaintiff had not proved its title or originality of the drawings and that even according to the plaint, the plaintiff had only made certain “technical improvement” in the internal electrical/electronic network and design lay outs of electronic relays and such improvements could not be treated as artistic work or literary work. The second point was that the plaintiff did not produce any material before the learned Single Judge in Support of his claim of improvement.
12. During the course of the arguments by, the learned counsel for the appellants we pointed out to the counsel that even assuming that the plaintiff only produced some improved models of circuits or relays, these could themselves be original work if they were improving the efficiency and durability of the product. Learned counsel was not able to explain how special improvements made by the plaintiff after 2 years of research could not be treated as original work. It is not denied that the 2nd plaintiff is an IIT B. Tech of 1971, that he worked in the industry for several years and that he had produced improved models of circuits, drawings and relays which improved the efficiency and durability of the products. If that was so, the plaintiff had definitely proved his originality and ownership of what he invented, and that property could not be utilized by the 2nd appellant. Admittedly the 2nd defendant (second appellant, Mr. Sanjay Chanana) is only a diploma holder. He had not done any research and that he worked with the plaintiff from 1991 to 1994 and thereafter the said Mr. Sanjay Chanana set up the 1st appellant company under the proprietorship of his father. The documents produced by the plaintiffs with the plaint, which include correspondence from the third parties to the 2nd appellant shows that it was Mr. Sanjay Chanana and not his father, who was running the 1st appellant company.
13. Annexures A to I filed by the plaintiffs have been set out in detail by the learned Single Judge in his order under appeal. Annexure A contains 4 photographs of the engine relay with over all view, front face, bottom view and inside view produced by the plaintiffs and the defendants respectively. It also contains photographs of the electronic timer with over all view, front face, bottom view and inside view produced by the plaintiffs and the defendants respectively. It also contains 4 photographs of the frequency relay with over all view, front face, bottom view and inside view produced by the plaintiffs and the defendants respectively. There are also 4 photographs of volt relay with over all view, front face, bottom view and inside view produced by the plaintiffs and the defendants respectively.
14. In view of the said material produced by the plaintiffs along with the plaint, the contention that the plaintiffs had not produced any material to show the relays, circuits and designs manufactured by them cannot be accepted. The plaintiffs have not only produced evidence in that behalf, but also produced evidence relating to the defendants' relays, circuits and designs and by comparison showed how the defendants have copied the same from the plaintiffs. Annexure H filed by the plaintiffs is also a comparative chart/statement detailing the identical and similar features between the products of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Annexure I is the literature issued by the plaintiffs and defendants for their respective products. The plaintiffs have also produced the correspondence between the appellants and their customers as per Annexure F. They are letter dated 20.5.1994 and 23.5.1994 from Bangalore to show that the 2nd appellant was getting orders to the plaintiffs' factory asking for details about the products. Annexure G is the letter dated 15.11.1994 to the 1st plaintiff's company from a customer of the plaintiffs mentioning about the Classic Electronics and the manner in which they were copying the plaintiffs' systems.
15. On 9.5.1995 the respondent/plaintiffs filed three more documents before the learned Single Judge being:—
(1) Letter dated 25.3.1995 from a customer of the 2nd defendant at plaintiffs' address.
(2) Visiting card given by the 2nd defendant mentioning Puneet Industrial Controls Pvt. Ltd. as his business address.
(3) Another note written by the 2nd defendant on 9.2.1994 to Mrs. S. Madan of plaintiffs' Ahmedabad Office requesting her to deliver certain pieces to his customer upon a discount.
16. On 2.11.1995 the plaintiffs filed another additional list of documents as under:—
(1) Photocopy of handwritten “Kacha” accounts given by 2nd defendant, Mr. Sanjay Chanana, to 2nd plaintiff stating the details (quantity, rate, amount, including labour charges) of components used for making each type of relay in the total production of the stated items during the period of 15.2.1994 to 28.2.1994
(2) Photocopy of handwritten “Kacha” accounts given by 2nd defendant, Mr. Sanjay Chanana, to 2nd plaintiff stating the details (quantity, rate, amount, including labour charges) of components used for making each type of relay in the total production of the stated items during the period of December, 1993.
(3) Photocopy of handwritten “Kacha” accounts given by 2nd defendant, Mr. Sanjay Chanana, to 2nd plaintiff stating the details (quantity, rate, amount, including labour charges) of components used for making each type of relay in the total production of the stated items during the period of January, 1994.
(4) Photocopy of handwritten “Kacha” accounts given by 2nd defendant, Mr. Sanjay Chanana, to 2nd plaintiff stating the details (quantity, rate, amount, including labour charges) of components used for making each type of relay in the total production of the stated items during the period of 15.3.1994 to 313.1994
(5) One set of mechanical drawings of some of the plaintiffs' products viz. timer, volt relay, engine relay and frequency relay.
(6) Photocopy of one set of mechanical drawings of the various components viz. channel base, housing, cover plate label stud, PCB, used by the plaintiff in making his product relays.
17. The defendants also filed some documents.
18. On 16.3.1995 the plaintiffs had filed along with their reply to the application under Order 39, Rule 4 CPC, Annexures A to G. Annexure A was a bundle of affidavits of suppliers. Annexure B was advertisements of the plaintiffs new model electronic relays in Trade Journals. Annexure Cwas affidavits of suppliers. Annexure D was affidavits of Ramesh Khosla, Harvinder Jit Singh and Vishwajeet Sharma. Annexure E contained copies of plaintiffs' challans for outgoing materials duly signed by 2nd defendant during the period 1991-1994. Annexure F is a copy of the Government, of India, Ministry of Defence publication showing plaintiffs as supplier of Thermistor Relay. Annexure G related to the rejection of the application for registration under the Designs Act.
19. From the above documents, those filed along with the plaint and those filed on 9.5.1995, 2.11.1995 and 16.3.1995, as stated above, it is clear that there is ample material before the learned Single Judge in regard to the plaintiffs improvements as well as the copying made by the appellants and the correspondence also show that the defendant was manufacturing products by utilizing the same relays/designs and circuits.
20. Learned single Judge had set out the various provisions of the copyright act and has also pointed out that the drawings relating to the circuits, relays and designs clearly come within the meaning of the words “artistic work” and “literary work”.
21. Artistic work included the drawings, diagrams, charts and plans, as per the definition in Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act. Section 2(c) is an inclusive definition and it includes computer programmes also.
22. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge, for the reasons mentioned above, that a prima facie case has been made out in regard to infringement of the copyright of the plaintiffs, that the plaintiff had a copyright in the improvements in the designs of relays and circuits invented by him, that the plaintiff had also produced enough material, before the Court in regard to the said ownership and that the plaintiffs have also produced material to show comparison, that the defendant had copied the plaintiffs products, relays and designs and was manufacturing products on that basis and, therefore, there was infringement of the right of the plaintiffs.
23. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine.