Rajiv Sahai Endlaw JUDGMENT
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
1. The five plaintiffs, namely i) Oxford University Press, ii) Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom (UK), iii) Cambridge University Press India Pvt. Ltd., iv) Taylor & Francis Group, U.K. and, v) Taylor & Francis Books India Pvt. Ltd., being the publishers, including of textbooks, instituted this suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the two defendants namely Rameshwari Photocopy Service (carrying on business from Delhi School of Economic (DSE), University of Delhi) and the University of Delhi from infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs in their publications by photocopying, reproduction and distribution of copies of plaintiffs' publications on a large scale and circulating the same and by sale of unauthorised compilations of substantial extracts from the plaintiffs' publications by compiling them into course packs/anthologies for sale.
2. The plaintiffs, in the plaint, have given particulars of at least four course packs being so sold containing photocopies of portions of plaintiffs' publication varying from 6 to 65 pages. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that the said course packs sold by the defendant No. 1 are based on syllabi issued by the defendant No. 2 University for its students and that the faculty teaching at the defendant No. 2 University is directly encouraging and recommending the students to purchase these course packs instead of legitimate copies of plaintiffs' publications. It is yet further the case of the plaintiffs that the libraries of the defendant No. 2 University are issuing books published by the plaintiffs stocked in the said libraries to the defendant No. 1 for photocopying to prepare the said course packs.
3. The suit along with IA No. 14632/2012 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for interim relief restraining photocopying/reproducing copies of plaintiffs' publication and sale of course packs came up before this Court first on 14th August, 2012 when summons of the suit and notice of the application for interim relief were issued and though no ex-parte ad-interim relief granted but a Commissioner appointed to visit the premises of the defendant No. 1 without prior notice and to make an inventory of all the infringing and pirated copies of the plaintiffs' publication found and to seize and seal the same.
4. The defendant No. 1 has filed a written statement defending the suit inter alia (a) disputing the copyright of the plaintiffs and contending that the plaintiffs have not produced any document to establish their copyright; (b) denying any act of infringement of copyright and alternatively pleading that the activities carried on by it amount to fair use of the works within the meaning of Sections 52(1)(a) & (h) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and pleading (c) that it has been granted licence with respect to a small shop within the campus of DSE to provide photocopy services to students and faculty at nominal rate and as per the terms of licence, the defendant No. 1 is required to provide 3000 photocopies per month to DSE, an institute of the University of Delhi, free of cost and to charge only the prescribed rate for the photocopy service meted out to others; (d) that the defendant No. 2 University recommends the syllabi for each academic year along with suggested reading materials of a wide variety of authors and which material is contained in different books of different publishers sold at a high price, often beyond the reach of the students; (e) that t........