The Delhi High Court has grants ex parte ad interim injunction on prima facie finding that Taxmann’s original headnotes were verbatim copied, including entries carrying the “TAXMANN.COM” source attribution. The Court found merit in Taxmann’s submission that the defendants had copied its original headnotes, including its distinctive manner of identifying, distilling and presenting the legal proposition and operative aspect of the judgment, rather than independently deriving propositions from the underlying judgments.
The Court also examined marked extracts of the eight impugned publications alongside Taxmann’s corresponding headnotes. The publications and website printouts were also shown during the hearing for comparison.
Briefly, Taxmann Allied Services Pvt Ltd. filed a suit against Commercial Law Publishers (India) Pvt Ltd. and others, alleging that eight of their tax-law publications reproduced its original headnotes without permission. Taxmann submitted that its editorial team independently prepares these headnotes by analysing judgments, identifying the legal issues decided and presenting them in a distinctive language and structure.
It was alleged that the copying extended to the precise wording and phrasing of its headnotes, with several reproduced entries even identifying “TAXMANN.COM” as their source. According to Taxmann, its cease-and-desist notice and subsequent reminder received no response.
After examining the material and comparing the publications with Taxmann’s headnotes, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan found merit in the submission that the defendants had not merely referred to the judgments or independently drawn legal propositions from them. Rather, they had verbatim copied Taxmann’s original headnotes, including its distinctive manner of identifying, distilling and presenting the relevant legal proposition and operative aspect of the judgment.
The Court found that Taxmann had established a prima facie case, that withholding an injunction would cause irreparable loss, and that the balance of convenience favoured Taxmann.
Appearances
For Plaintiffs: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Ms. Pallavi S. Kansal, Mr. Raghav Vij, Mr. Suraj Kumar Jha and Mr. Pratham Malik, Advs.
For Respondents: NA

