Microsoft Corporation v. Hitendra Idnani

CS(OS) 2403/2008

Microsoft Corporation filed a suit against Hitendra Idnani, proprietor of Laptech Solutions Pvt. Ltd., alleging copyright infringement. The core issue was the unauthorized hard-disk loading and sale of pirated versions of Microsoft Windows and Office software on branded computers. Despite the defendants being ex-parte and the court initially requiring examination of expert witnesses, the Delhi High Court found sufficient material on record to establish infringement.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court
Case Number
CS(OS) 2403/2008
Judge(s)
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in copyright matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Microsoft Corporation vs Hitendra Idnani is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

copyrightC.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 752/2022

Perfetti Van Melle S.P.AvsM.G Products / M.G Food Product

Perfetti Van Melle S.P.A filed a cancellation petition seeking rectification of a specific copyright registration (A-79261/2007) held by M.G. Products. The court examined the matter in light of a prior civil suit that had been decreed based on a settlement agreement dated October 31, 2012. This settlement explicitly included the Respondent's agreement to cancel the impugned copyright registration. Consequently, the Delhi High Court directed the cancellation and expungement of the registration from the Register of Copyrights.

copyrightW.P.(C)-IPD 56/2021 & CM 15913/2016, CM 42498/2017

Chasvinder SinghvsThe Registrar Of Copyrights & Ors

This Delhi High Court order addressed a writ petition filed by Chasvinder Singh against The Registrar of Copyrights. During arguments, respondents raised objections regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the appropriate legal remedy for challenging the copyright grant was through a rectification petition under Section 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court granted time to the petitioner to take further instructions before listing the matter for hearing.

copyrightMISC. PETITION No. 468 of 2022

Deepak SinghvsBunty Raghav (Producer) and others

Deepak Singh filed a petition seeking interim relief against producers (Respondents) who were making a film based on his book, 'Janhit Mein Jaari'. The core dispute revolved around copyright infringement. While the High Court noted that the civil suit was pending before the Trial Court and emphasized the need for evidence regarding similarity between the book and the film, it ultimately directed the parties to proceed with the trial court's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C., ensuring the existing interim relief continued until a final decision.

copyrightCS(COMM) 244/2022

Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.vsFantasy Sports Myfab11 Pvt. Ltd.

Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. filed an injunction seeking to prevent Fantasy Sports Myfab11 Pvt. Ltd. from unauthorizedly using its proprietary Fantasy Sports Mobile Application (EXCHANGE22). The Plaintiffs claimed that their unique game structure, components, and user interface were protected under copyright law. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately found no prima facie evidence of copyright infringement by the Defendants. Consequently, the court vacated the ex parte injunction previously granted to the Plaintiffs.

copyrightCS(COMM) 1419/2016

Holland Company Lp And Anr.vsS.P. Industries

The plaintiffs claimed ownership and copyright over the industrial drawings of the Automatic Twist Lock (ATL) system, alleging that the defendant copied these drawings to manufacture spare parts for ATL devices used by Indian Railways. The court dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case, particularly given that the drawings were published and available in the public domain.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Copyright infringement or licensing dispute?

From digital piracy to content licensing, Arctic's copyright practice covers enforcement, licensing structuring, and fair-use defences.

Speak to a specialist →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar copyright matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call