1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.......................................................................................................5

STATEMENT OF FACTS.......................................................................................................................6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES......................................................................................................................7

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS.................................................................................................................8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...................................................................................................................9

ISSUE 1: Whether the Defendant's use of copyrighted materials without authorization constitutes a
violation of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957...............................................................................................9

ISSUE 2: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interim and final injunctive relief to prevent further
unauthorized use of his copyrighted materials by the Defendant.............................................................11

PRAYER..................................................................................................................................................13

2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes
1. The Copyright Act 1957
2. Code of Civil Procedure 1908
3. The Commercial Courts Act 2015
4. Delhi High court Act 1966
5. Madras High Court Act 1927
6. Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules 2021
7. Specific Relief Act 1963

3
 TABLE OF CASES

1. Authors Guild v. Google Inc

2. R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films

3. Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Leo Burnett (India) Pvt ltd

4. Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd.

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this Honourable Court is invoked under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, as
the Plaintiff alleges copyright infringement by the Defendant, Epiona Private Limited, within
its territorial bounds.

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Plaintiff, Mr. Samay Sinha, a resident of Kolkata, a celebrated literary luminary

has published his works in various genres and demographics. His contribution to the

literary community has garnered him with several accolades, including the Sahitya

Akademi Award.

2. The Defendant, Epiona Private Limited is incorporated in Chennai and engages in

development and selling of artificial intelligence products including creating Large

Language Models (LLM) including different versions of Integrated Creative Pre-

Conditioned Metamorphose (Int CPM), inter-alia, such as CPM-1, CPM-2, CPM-3

and CPM-4, which are trained to provide a realistic, desired output, with the

information extracted from each piece of text. Online activities are also engaged

within the jurisdiction of Hiled.

3. The Plaintiff, in his Cease-and-Desist notice dated, 16 th November 2023, raised

several allegations in relation to copyright infringement, inter alia copying extensive

text from the Petitioner’s material for training datasets, and the illegal ingestion of

copyrighted material of the Plaintiff.

4. The Defendant, in the reply notice dated 14 December, 2023, categorically denied the

allegations, stating that a publication and its utilization is deemed to be accessible to

the general public. Further, they asserted that there was neither substantial similarity

between the output of Int CPM to the copyrighted of the Plaintiff.

5. The Plaintiff then resolved to file a suit before the High Court of Hiled against the

Defendants claiming injunction, compensation and damages for the alleged illegal use

of his copyrighted material.

6. The suit lies before this Hon’ble Court for adjudication.

6
 STATEMENT OF ISSUE

ISSUE 1

Whether the Defendant's use of copyrighted materials without authorization constitutes a

violation of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957

ISSUE 2

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interim and final injunctive relief to prevent further
unauthorized use of his copyrighted materials by the Defendant

7
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

ISSUE 1: Whether the Defendant's use of copyrighted materials without authorization

constitutes a violation of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957

The Defendant's incorporation of copyrighted materials, including the Plaintiff's works, in

developing Int CPM without consent, acknowledgment, or compensation, constitutes clear
infringement under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. This Act explicitly safeguards authors'
rights, prohibiting unauthorized use or reproduction of their works. The Defendant's actions
squarely align with the Act's definition of infringement, violating the Plaintiff's exclusive
rights as the author and fundamental principles of copyright law. Consequently, legal redress
under the Indian Copyright Act is warranted for the Defendant's unequivocal infringement.

ISSUE 2: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interim and final injunctive relief to
prevent further unauthorized use of his copyrighted materials by the Defendant

Considering the egregious nature of the Defendant's copyright infringement and the
irreparable harm caused to the Plaintiff's rights and interests, this Honourable Court is urged
to grant both interim and final injunctive relief, thereby restraining the Defendant from
further unauthorized use of the Plaintiff's copyrighted materials.

8
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: Whether the Defendant's use of copyrighted materials without authorization

constitutes a violation of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957

The Defendant's infringement upon the Plaintiff's intellectual property rights under the Indian
Copyright Act, 1957, is starkly evident in its unauthorized utilization of the Plaintiff's
copyrighted materials. These materials were extensively employed in the development and
training of the Defendant's artificial intelligence software product, Int CPM. Such usage not
only violates the exclusive rights vested in the Plaintiff as the author but also constitutes an
egregious infringement upon his economic interests and reputation.

The foundational principle of copyright law is to protect the rights of authors and creators
over their original works. These rights include the exclusive rights to reproduce, adapt, and
communicate their works to the public. By incorporating the Plaintiff's copyrighted materials
into its software product without obtaining proper authorization, the Defendant has clearly
contravened these exclusive rights.

Moreover, the Defendant's actions are not merely confined to personal or non-commercial use
but form an integral part of its commercial enterprise aimed at the development and sale of
Int CPM. This commercial exploitation of the Plaintiff's intellectual property without consent
or compensation further exacerbates the gravity of the infringement.

The absence of any license or consent from the Plaintiff for the use of his copyrighted
materials by the Defendant underscores the unauthorized nature of the Defendant's actions.
Despite being fully aware of the proprietary nature of the Plaintiff's works, the Defendant
proceeded with the utilization of these materials without seeking the requisite authorization,
credit, or compensation.

Authors Guild v. Google Inc. (2013) the Authors Guild sued Google for copyright
infringement regarding its Google Books project. Google had scanned millions of books,
including copyrighted works, without explicit permission from the authors. The court
ultimately ruled in Favor of Google, stating that its use of copyrighted material constituted
fair use because it provided significant public benefit by making books searchable online

9
The unauthorized utilization of the Plaintiff's copyrighted materials by the Defendant has
resulted in the creation of outputs by Int CPM that bear substantial similarity to the original
works authored by the Plaintiff. These outputs, generated in response to text prompts,
effectively reproduce elements of the Plaintiff's copyrighted works, thereby constituting
unauthorized derivative works.

Furthermore, the Defendant cannot legitimately avail itself of the Défense of transformative
use. The utilization of the Plaintiff's copyrighted materials in the development of Int CPM
does not entail any transformative purpose or character. Instead, it amounts to a direct
appropriation of the Plaintiff's expressive content for commercial gain, without any
significant alteration or creative reimagining.

Overall, the Defendant's unauthorized use of the Plaintiff's copyrighted materials has caused
significant harm to the Plaintiff's economic interests and reputation as an author. By
incorporating the Plaintiff's works into its artificial intelligence software product without due
authorization or credit, the Defendant has unjustly benefitted at the expense of the Plaintiff's
creative endeavours.

The Defendant, Epiona Private Limited, stands accused of a clear violation of the Indian
Copyright Act, 1957, through its unauthorized utilization of copyrighted materials, including
the works authored by the Plaintiff, Samay Sinha. Such actions constitute a flagrant
infringement of the Plaintiff's intellectual property rights, as enshrined in the statutory
provisions governing copyright protection in India. The Defendant's admitted use of the
Plaintiff's copyrighted materials without obtaining proper consent, credit, or compensation
underscores the gravity of the infringement and the blatant disregard for the legal rights of the
author.

R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films (1978) the Supreme Court of India established the principle that
substantial copying of the essential features of a copyrighted work amounts to infringement,
even if non-literal elements are altered. This case reaffirms the protection granted to authors
under the Copyright Act

Furthermore, the Defendant's actions squarely fall within the purview of copyright
infringement as defined under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, which explicitly protects the
rights of authors and creators against unauthorized use or reproduction of their works. The
Act serves as the primary legislative framework for safeguarding intellectual property rights

10
in India and imposes strict obligations on individuals and entities to respect the rights of
copyright owners.

Therefore, it is evident that the Defendant's unauthorized incorporation of copyrighted

materials, including the Plaintiff's works, in the development of its artificial intelligence
software product, Int CPM, constitutes a clear violation of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957.
The Defendant's actions not only undermine the integrity of copyright law but also warrant
legal redress to protect the rights and interests of the Plaintiff as the rightful owner of the
copyrighted works.

ISSUE 2: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interim and final injunctive relief to
prevent further unauthorized use of his copyrighted materials by the Defendant

In light of the Defendant's admitted infringement of the Plaintiff's copyrighted materials,

immediate interim injunctive relief is imperative to halt any ongoing unauthorized use of the
Plaintiff's works by the Defendant. Such relief is essential to prevent further irreparable harm
to the Plaintiff's intellectual property rights pending the resolution of this legal dispute. The
Defendant's continued use of the Plaintiff's copyrighted materials without authorization poses
a significant risk of ongoing infringement, thereby warranting urgent judicial intervention to
preserve the Plaintiff's rights.

Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Leo Burnett (India) Pvt ltd the plaintiff sought both interim and final
injunctive relief against the defendant for copyright infringement. The court granted the
interim injunction, restraining the defendant from using the plaintiff's copyrighted
promotional videos until the final disposal of the case. Subsequently, the court also granted
final injunctive relief, permanently restraining the defendant from further infringing the
plaintiff's copyrights.

Moreover, final injunctive relief is necessary to provide permanent protection for the
Plaintiff's intellectual property rights against future infringement by the Defendant. Given the
Defendant's blatant disregard for the Plaintiff's rights and its admission of unauthorized use,
there is a clear and present danger of recurring infringement absent judicial intervention.
Final injunctive relief is therefore essential to safeguard the Plaintiff's exclusive rights as the
author and prevent any further unauthorized exploitation of his copyrighted materials by the
Defendant.

11
Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. (1997) While not specifically
related to interim injunctive relief, this case involved final injunctive relief granted to prevent
further copyright infringement. The court permanently restrained the defendant from making
unauthorized reproductions of copyrighted sound recordings, highlighting the importance of
injunctive relief in protecting copyright owners' rights.

Furthermore, injunctive relief is consistent with the overarching objectives of copyright law,
which seek to protect authors' rights and foster creativity by preventing unauthorized use or
reproduction of their works. Granting both interim and final injunctive relief will ensure that
the Plaintiff's rights are adequately safeguarded throughout the legal proceedings and beyond.
Therefore, the Court is respectfully urged to grant both interim and final injunctive relief to
halt any ongoing infringement and prevent future unauthorized use of the Plaintiff's
copyrighted materials by the Defendant.

12
 PRAYER

In the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Plaitiff humbly submits that the
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

1. Grant of interim and final injunctive relief restraining the Defendant from further
unauthorized use of the Plaintiff's copyrighted materials;

2. Award of damages for copyright infringement, including an account of profits derived

from the unauthorized use;

3. Reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the Plaintiff in bringing this
action; and

4. Any further relief that this Honourable Court deems just and proper in the
circumstances of this case.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff

Counsel for plaintiff

13