Fermat Education v. Sorting Hat Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Fermat Schooling v. Sorting Hat Applied sciences Pvt. Ltd.Within the Excessive Court docket of MadrasO.A. 502/2018 and Purposes 4609, 4699/2018 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) 330/2018Before Justice C.V. KarthikeyanDecided on August 13, 2018

Relevancy of the Case: Injunction towards defendants in a case involving copyright infringement of academic materials obtainable on the plaintiff’s web site

Statutes and Provisions Concerned

The Info Know-how Act, 2000 (Part 2(1)(w), 79)
The Copyrights Act, 1957 (Part 52(1)(i))

Related Info of the Case

The plaintiff, Fermat Schooling, is an e-learning platform offering teaching courses for CAT. The second plaintiff had solely created course supplies consisting of query banks and options.
In February 2018, the plaintiff realized that Unacademy had uploaded greater than 200 questions and options from its free course materials on its web site.
Quickly after, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant in regards to the infringement, and upon receiving the discover, they admitted it. Nevertheless, Unacademy didn’t take away the content material from the web site. As a substitute, the defendants supplied the plaintiff a sum of ₹5,00,000/- to settle the problem by e-mail.
The plaintiffs filed a swimsuit searching for an order of everlasting injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing or utilizing any supplies in any kind. Additionally they claimed damages, a decree to take away the supplies from the web site and a decree to render accounts of the revenue earned from the supplies and the price of the swimsuit filed.
The plaintiffs additionally filed for an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from importing the course supplies in any kind. And the court docket granted the identical.
The defendants and one of many educators from Unacademy filed functions to put aside the injunction granted, however the court docket dismissed the functions and refused to vacate the injunction in drive.

     Outstanding Arguments by the Advocates

The plaintiff’s counsel argued that the plaintiffs have proprietary rights to the supplies; therefore, the defendant can not declare safety beneath Part 52(1)(i) of the Copyrights Act, 1957. The defendant additionally admitted to the infringement within the correspondence e-mail. The primary defendant just isn’t an middleman in response to the phrases and circumstances of the web site and likewise as outlined beneath Part 2(1)(w) of the Info Know-how Act, 2000. Therefore, it can not declare safety beneath Part 79 of the Info Know-how Act, 2000.
The defendant’s counsel submitted that the primary defendant claimed safety beneath part 52(1)(i) of the Copyrights Act, 1957, as they reproduced the fabric for the aim of schooling. The primary defendant is an middleman beneath Part 2(1)(w) of the Info Know-how Act, 2000, they usually had no obligation to look at the fabric uploaded.

Opinion of the Court docket

The defendants don’t qualify for exemption beneath Part 52(1)(i) of the Copyrights Act, 1957, as consideration was taken and was thus a enterprise enterprise.
Furthermore, the defendant doesn’t fall beneath the definition of middleman beneath Part 2(1)(w) of the Info Know-how Act, 2000. The uploaded materials was per the defendant’s discretion and an obligation to make sure non-infringement existed.

Closing Choice

The court docket granted an advert interim non permanent injunction towards the defendants.

Adyasha Sahoo, an undergraduate scholar on the Institute of Regulation, Nirma College Ahmedabad, and Arnav Kaman, an undergraduate scholar at Rajiv Gandhi Nationwide College of Regulation, Punjab, ready this case abstract throughout their internship with The Cyber Weblog India in January/February 2024.