$~4
*
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+CS(OS)
2342/2010
MUZAMMIL REHMAN .....
Plaintiff
Through: Mr. S.K. Bansal and Mr. Ajay
Amitabh
Suman, Advs.
Versus
J WALTER
THOMPSON COMPANY
LIMITED (J.W.T) & ORS .....
Defendants
Through: Mr. Tarun Johri and Mr. Ankit
Saini,
Advs. for
D-2.
Mr. Aayush Agarwala and Mr.
Pramod
Agarwala, Advs. for D-1.
Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Prachi
Agarwal and Ms. Mrinali Menon,
Advs. for
D-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE
MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R
% 05.01.2018
IAs
No.21804/2012 (of D-1 u/O VII R-11(a) CPC) & 8650/2016 (of D-1 u/O I
R-10(2) CPC)
1.
The defendant No.1 seeks
rejection of the plaint insofar as against it and/or deletion of its name.
2.
The counsel for the plaintiff has
argued that the plaintiff has instituted this suit for injunction restraining
infringement of copyright and for ancillary reliefs, pleading (i) that the
copyrighted material was passed on by the plaintiff to the defendant No.1 for
publication; (ii) that the defendant No.1 is in collusion with the defendant
No.3; and, (iii) that the defendant No.3, in its advertisement, has infringed
the copyright of the plaintiff.
CS(OS) 2342/2010 Page 1 of
3
3.
The counsel for the defendant
No.1 has argued that the pleadings of collusion are vague and that it is the
plea of the defendant No.3 that the impugned advertisement was created not by
the defendant No.1 but by some other advertising agency.
4.
These are questions of trial and
sufficiency or insufficiency of cause of action cannot be adjudged at this
stage.
5.
Dismissed.
IA No.15484/2013 (of D-2 u/O VII
R-11(a) r/w u/O I R-10(2) CPC)
6.
The said application is identical
to the applications of the defendant No.1 aforesaid.
7.
For the reasons aforesaid, dismissed.
IAs No.6417/2013 (of D-3 u/O VII R-11(a) CPC) &
6416/2013 (of D-3 u/O I R-10(2) CPC)
8.
The counsel for defendant No.3
has not raised any additional argument.
9.
Dismissed.
CS(OS) 2342/2010 & IA
No.15384/2010 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC)
10.
The suit is ripe for framing of issues.
11.
On the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues are framed:
(I)
Whether the plaintiff is the owner of copyright in
the Tooth
Paste Ad Concept comprising of literary and
artistic works? OPP
(II)
Whether the defendants are guilty of infringing the
copyright of
the
plaintiff in the copyright work which includes literary and artistic
works in the Tooth Paste Ad Concept? OPP
CS(OS) 2342/2010
Page 2 of
3
(III)
Whether the defendants No.1&2
are guilty of breach of confidential information/communication of the
plaintiff? OPP
(IV) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages jointly from
defendants and, if so, to what extent? OPP
(V)
Relief.
12.
It is clarified that the issues
since the plaintiff has not quantified damages suffered on account of each of
the defendants and has claimed damages jointly from the defendants, in the
event of the plaintiff failing to prove entitlement to damages jointly from the
defendants, even if the plaintiff is found entitled to damages from one or more
of the defendants, the plaintiff would not be entitled thereto.
13.
No other issue arises or is pressed.
14.
The parties to file their list of witnesses within
fifteen days.
15.
The plaintiff to file affidavits
by way of examination-in-chief of all its witnesses within eight weeks from
today.
16.
Option of having the evidence
recorded before a Commissioner has been refused.
17.
List before the Joint Registrar
on 9th March, 2018 for fixing the dates for recording of the evidence of the
witnesses of the plaintiff.
18.
List before the Court on 16th July, 2018 for hearing arguments
on the application of the plaintiff for interim relief.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
JANUARY 05, 2018
bs..
CS(OS) 2342/2010 Page
3 of 3
