CS(COMM) 334/2021 Page 1 of 15

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 25.02.2026

Judgment delivered on: 08.04.2026

CS(COMM) 334/2021

DASSAULT SYSTEMES SOLIDWORKS

CORPORATION & ANR .....Plaintiffs

versus

ZONEONNE VENTURE PRIVATE

LIMITED & ANR. ....Defendants

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Plaintiffs : Mr. Shantanu Sahay, Mr. Swastik Bisarya and

Ms. Manvi Panwar, Advocates.

For the Defendants : None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

J U D G M E N T

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA , J.

1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for a decree of permanent

injunction restraining the defendants from infringement of its software

programs including SOLIDWORKS, apart from other ancillary reliefs of

damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up and costs.

2. The facts as stated in the plaint are that the plaintiff no.1 is a

Corporation organized and existing under the laws of the United States of

America with its corporate Headquarters at Masschusetts, in the United

States of America. Plaintiff no.1 is a sister concern of Dassault Systemes,

France and was established to manage all business and legal matters with

respect to its SOLIDWORKS software. The SOLIDWORKS software is a

computer aided design software aimed at modeling and simulating three-

CS(COMM) 334/2021 Page 2 of 15

dimensional solid products. It has been considered as a high quality

software solution due to its intuitive design and capability to test in real

world conditions. As one of the leading 3D simulation software solutions

in the world, it caters to a variety of industries, including aerospace,

defence, automotive, transportation, consumer products, education,

electronics, medical and oil and gas etc. Plaintiff no.2 is a company

registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office

located at New Delhi. Plaintiff no.2 is the wholly owned subsidiary of

Dassault Systemes, France and a sister concern of plaintiff no.1. Plaintiff

no.2 was set up to carry out business activities and anti- piracy campaigns

of Dassault Systemes, France and plaintiff no.1 in India.

3. Plaintiffs claim that various software programs are known for

developing their revolutionary 3D simulation Computer-Aided Design

(CAD), Computer-A ided Manufacturing (CAM) and Computer-Aided

Engineering (CAE) software programs. Some of plaintiffs’ world-

renowned software programs are:

a. SOLIDWORKS - A compact CAD and CAE software used by

companies all over the world to develop products in a 3D

environment. SolidWorks has been highly prevalent in mid and

small-scale companies due to its highly competitive price of

procurement and is owned by plaintiff no.1.

4. Plaintiffs claim that the respective software programs and all user

instruction manuals included with them are covered under the definition of

a “literary work” and are entitled to copyright protection. These

programmes have been developed for the plaintiffs by their employees,

during the course of their employment with them. Plaintiff no.1’s software

programs are “works” that were first published in the United States of

CS(COMM) 334/2021 Page 3 of 15

America (hereinafter referred to as “USA” ) which is a member country of

the Berne Convention, Universal Copyright Conventions and the World

Trade Organization Agreement. Since India and USA are both member

countries of the aforesaid conventions, all such works first published in the

USA are protected under Indian Copyright Law as though their works were

first published in India and thus, plaintiffs’ works are protected in India

under Section 40 of the Copyright Act, 1957 read in conjunction with the

International Copyright Order, 1999.

5. Plaintiffs also claim that due to the highly sought-after nature of

plaintiffs’ software programs, software piracy has always been a concern.

Through market sources, the plaintiffs came to learn that its most sought-

after software programs, such as the various versions of SolidWorks, are

most susceptible to piracy.

6. Plaintiffs stated that in general the software industry sustains itself

on a viable licensing system and not on the conventional ‘sale’ system. In

that, the customer only acquires the right to use the software contained in

compact disks/USBs or a portable or cloud storage medium, and does per

se, not acquire any title in the software. Alternatively, the genuine software

is also licensed by the plaintiffs through internet delivery on the condition

that the customer would agree to the terms of an End- User License

Agreement (EULA) and/or the Customer License and Online Services

Agreement (CLOSA), prior to software installation for a particular number

of computers. Once the terms of the EULA or CLOSA are agreed upon, the

authorized representatives of the plaintiffs transmit the license to the

customer via the registered e-mail address. Plaintiffs claim that any entity

which uses the original licensed software must be in a position to produce

evidence of payment or proof of having procured a requisite number of

CS(COMM) 334/2021 Page 4 of 15

genuine licenses matching the exact number of computers on which the

exact software was downloaded. Plaintiffs claim to be having a complete

data base of all the licensees who have acquired valid licenses from it.

Thus, any use other than the licensed used in terms of the aforesaid

agreement, would be illegal and violative of the intellectual property rights

of the plaintiff.

7. Plaintiffs stated that after having been victims of significant financial

losses on account of piracy, it invested large sums of money to develop and

build security mechanisms into their software to detect violations or piracy.

The said security system enables the plaintiff to check whether the

software programs are being used in terms of the agreements.

8. The security systems are essentially a software program known as

“Phone Home” technology built into the software, which verifies whether

the said software is being used in accordance with the agreements.

Plaintiffs have explained the methodology by stating that the technology

captures and records specific information about the usage of the software

programme by the host and the computer on which it is installed and used.

The said information is transmitted to the plaintiff’s servers which

automatically cross-check the details of the software and the computer

system on which it is installed i.e. the license key, software version etc. and

determine whether the software is being used with a fake or a pre-existing

unique license key beyond the scope of the EULA and CLOSA. The

transmission of the specific information referred to above logs the said

information as an incident report of an infringement known as an

“Infringement Hit”. Each infringement hit refer s to the number of times the

pirated/unauthorized software is used by an individual. The said

infringement hits are then cross checked against a consolidated data base

CS(COMM) 334/2021 Page 5 of 15

which records all the infringement hits it received, along with the

corresponding data relating to the computer and the online network of

which the said computer system is a part , to identify the infringing user of

the software. Once such identification takes place, the plaintiff usually

contacts the infringer in order to curb the unauthorized use.

9. The manner in which the security mechanism collates its information

is as under:

“i. Details of the software:

a. Software brand and version.

b. License key.

ii. Details of the computer system:

a. Media Access Control (MAC) address.

b. Internet Protocol (IP) address.

c. Name of the company domain on a network

d. Hostname of the computer system on a network.

e. Email domain of the network.

f. Name of the internet service provider (ISP).

iii. Details of the infringement:

a. Date of the infringement hit.

b. Number of unique MAC addresses on the network using

pirated/unauthorised versions of the software. This may include MAC

addresses of the various devices (desktops, laptops, I-Pads, Mobile

Phones, etc.) connected to the infringing computer system.”

10. It is stated that the terms of the EULA and CLOSA are electronically

shared with the customer, which clearly disclose and inform the

prospective user of the software regarding the inbuilt security mechanisms,

their purposes and the scope of data it collects from the users’ computer.

Thus, the plaintiffs claim that any licensed purchaser of the plaintiff s’

software, is fully aware and cognizant of the security mechanisms built into

the plaintiff’s software, even prior to its usage, by way of the EULA and

CLOSA agreements.

11. The infringement data base portal of the plaintiffs is named

‘Exalead’ which allows the authorized representatives of the plaintiffs to

CS(COMM) 334/2021 Page 6 of 15

access the infringement data base and analyze infringement hits from users

of infringing versions of the plaintiff s’ software, including SolidWorks.

12. Plaintiffs claim to have received information through market sources

regarding certain infringements sometime in the month of September 2019

which led them to initiate verification process from the Exalead portal. The

said verification revealed that the defendants were using

pirated/unauthorized versions of the plaintiff’s SolidWorks software, on at

least seven computer systems. In follow-up, the plaintiffs established

contact with the defendants vi de e-mail dated 27.09.2020 and informed

them of their intellectual property rights in the SolidWorks software. The

plaintiff also cautioned the defendant to refrain from using

pirated/un authorized versions of the SolidWorks software. Defendants are

alleged to have not responded to the said e-mail.

13. Subsequently, the legal counsel of the plaintiff sent an e-mail dated

07.12.2020 informing the defendants of the evidence available with it

regarding the infringement of the SolidWorks software by the defendants

on account of the information made available through the inbuilt security

mechanism. The defendant did not respond to the said e-mail. The plaintiff

sent another legal notice dated 09.12.2020, which also was not responded

to by the defendants. It is stated that certain settlement procedures were

commenced, however, they did not fructify. A similar situation arose again

in the month of July 2021 when the inbuilt security mechanism received

infringement hits on at least seven computer systems of the defendant.

14. Plaintiffs state that the inbuilt security mechanism is limited in its

application to the extent that it captures the infringement hits only when the

computer system on which such infringement is continuing, is connected to

the internet. Plaintiffs apprehend that the defendants may have committed

CS(COMM) 334/2021 Page 7 of 15

multiple instances of infringement which may not have been captured by

the security mechanism built into the SolidWorks software on account of

the computer not being connected to the internet. However, the plaintiffs

claim that in the present case around 474 number of infringement hits had

been recorded and collated in the Exalead database which is available with

the plaintiff.

15. Plaintiffs claim that the defendants knowingly used the

pirated/unauthorized versions of the plaintiff’s SolidWorks software

programs rather than procuring genuine licenses from the plaintiffs, and

thereby infringed the plaintiffs’ copyrights subsisting in the software.

Plaintiffs fairly disclose that the defendants have not obtained any license

of the plaintiff’s solid work software till date as per the internal license

database maintained by the plaintiff.

16. The plaintiffs have, in the past also, protected the SolidWorks

software programme from infringement/piracy and have instituted a

number of lawsuits in this Court in which favorable orders were passed in

their favour.

17. In view of the above, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the

present suit seeking permanent injunction, damages, rendition of accounts,

delivery up and costs.

18. Heard Mr. Shantanu Sahay, learned counsel for the plaintiff and

examined the pleadings and evidence on record.

History of the Court proceedings

19. Summons were issued in this matter vide order dated 23.07.2021 and

an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs

restraining the defendants from using or reproducing or distributing any

pirated/unlicensed/unauthorized software programs of the plaintiffs.

CS(COMM) 334/2021 Page 8 of 15

Defendants were further directed not to format the computer system s or

erase any data, log files or installation s pertaining to plaintiff’s copyrights

in its software programs.

20. Vide order dated 01.02.2022, this Court directed that summons to be

issued again to the defendants at the Delhi address and in addition,

plaintiffs were permitted to file fresh addresses of the defendants and if so

filed, summons would be issued at the said address as well. Vide order

dated 08.03.2022, fresh notices were again issued to the defendants

through all prescribed modes including electronic mode as well as through

Whatsapp.

21. It is noted in the order dated 12.05.2022 that the defendant ha d

entered appearance and sought time to file replies and written statements

and this Court granted the same in terms of the times of the Commercial

Courts, Act, 2015, and Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

22. Vide order dated 29.07.2022, the Joint Registrar (Judicial) recorded

that the defendants stand served and vide order dated 09.09.2022 of the

Joint Registrar (Judicial), the right of the defendants to file written

statement was closed. The defendants were proceeded ex parte vide order

dated 15.09.2022, since none had appeared on behalf of the defendants.

23. Vide order dated 20.03.2024, this Court confirmed the ad -interim

injunction granted vide order dated 01.02.2022 till the disposal of the suit.

Vide order dated 05.02.2024, PW1 Nripendra Kashyap was examined

between 12:30 pm and 12:45 pm and was discharged. Vide order dated

28.05.2024, PW2 Santosh Kumar was examined in respect of the damages

claimed and discharged. Vide order dated 21.11.2025, though written

submissions had been filed in July, 2024, the Court granted time to file an

updated written submission s.

CS(COMM) 334/2021 Page 9 of 15

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION :

24. In support of its averments in the suit plaint, the plaintiff has filed

the evidence by way of an affidavit marked as Ex. PW1/A of one Mr.

Nripendra Kashyap who has tendered the documents Ex. PW1/1 to

PW1/16 out of which Ex. PW1/1, PW1/2, PW1/4, PW1/9, PW1/12 and

PW1/13 are relabeled as Mark “C” to Mark “H” being photocopies.

25. PW-1 has generally deposed in favour of the plaintiff and has

supported the averments made in the plaint and the prayers sought in the

suit. In particular, PW-1 has deposed the details of the infringement of the

SolidWorks software by the defendants highlighting the most recent uses at

the time of filing the suit which were generated in the month of July 2021

which also captured the infringement by the defendant since the plaintiff

identified for the first time the piracy which commenced in the month of

October 2018. The deponent has reproduced the details of infringement

with the identification of the number of computer systems on which the

infringement hits were recorded in a tabulated form which is reproduced

hereunder:

Machine

Sl.No.

MAC

Addresses

Email

Domain

Number of

Infringement

First

instance of

Infringement

Last

instance of

Infringement

1 00e02de53b30 Zoneone

me.com

17 09.01.2020 18.03.2020

2 f0761c16ea35,

5c93a2df9361

Zoneone

me.com

36 31.10.2018 12.07.2012

3 00ad2445b7d1 Zoneone

me.com

69 30.10.2019 09.07.2020

4 8cec4bceae7b,

00ad2445b7cb,

00ad2445b7aa,

8cec4bce7b0d

Zoneone

me.com

165 24.10.2019 29.05.2021

5 8cec4bceade7,

00ad2445b7ce

Zoneone

me.com

177 10.08.2019 13.07.2021

CS(COMM) 334/2021 Page 10 of 15

6 8cec4bceb1f7 Zoneone

me.com

2 23.07.2019 24.07.2019

7 00ad2445b7ca Zoneone

me.com

8 14.10.2019 02.12.2019

26. PW-1 has also deposed that the defendant has never sought nor has

ever been given the license to use the SolidWorks software programme by

the plaintiff.

27. PW-1 has also deposed the manner in which the inbuilt security

mechanism developed and integrated into the SOLIDWORKS software

program ascertains the infringement by the defendants and the number of

computers/other systems of access on account of “phone Home” software.

PW-1 has explained the methodology by stating that the technology

captures and records specific information about the usage of the software

programme by the host and the computer on which it is installed and used.

The said information is transmitted to plaintiff’s servers which

automatically cross-check the details of the software and the computer

system on which it is installed i.e. the license key, software version etc. and

whether the software is being used with a fake or a pre-existing unique

license key which would be beyond the scope of EULA and CLOSA. The

transmission of the specific information referred to above logs the said

information as an incident report of an infringement known as an

“Infringement Hit”. It is stated that each infringement hit would refer to the

number of times the pirated/unauthorized software is used by an individual.

The said infringement hits are then cross checked from a consolidated data

base which records all the infringement hits it receives, along with the

corresponding data relating to the computer and the online network the said

computer system is a part of, to identify the infringing user of the software.

CS(COMM) 334/2021 Page 11 of 15

28. It is deposed that once such identification takes place, the infringer is

contacted and informed about the infringement at his end in order to curb

the unauthorized use. In case, the infringer agrees to buy the licensed

software, the matter may not proceed further. In default whereof, notices

are sent followed by filing of a lawsuit claiming permanent injunction and

damages etc.

29. The methodology and mechanism explained by the plaintiff appears

to be a plausible manner in which it is able to focus and capture

infringement of its copyrighted SOLIDWORKS software program. The

plaintiff has also admitted that only when the computer on which such

unauthorised use is continuing is connected to the internet, then alone

could the plaintiff identify the acts of infringement. The plaintiff has also

explained how the built in security mechanism “phone home” operates and

how the data collated is matched and verified with its licensed software

data to ascertain whether the infringer of the copyright is a licensed user or

not. Similarly, the number of computers or end terminals where the

SOLIDWORKS software program is unauthorisedly used is captured by

the MAC addresses. Thus, the number of computers and number of

infringement hits are ascertained by the above process. There is nothing on

record to rebut or disprove the aforesaid averment in the plaint or the

deposition of PW-1 for this Court to arrive at any other contrary finding.

30. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has

been able to prove by cogent evidence that the defendants have infringed

the copyrighted SOLIDWORKS software program of the plaintiff on 7

computers at infringement database (Exalead Portal). This finding can also

be inferred from the deathly silence on the part of the defendant to the legal

notice dated 09.12.2020 issued by the plaintiff informing the defendant

CS(COMM) 334/2021 Page 12 of 15

about the infringement hits plaintiff has received through its built- in

security mechanism- “phone home”. The silence and continued acts of

unauthorised use would constitute infringement of the copyright of the

plaintiff in its SOLIDWORKS software program. Despite having been

served with the summons and having appeared, the defendant chose not to

file its reply nor does any evidence impel the Court to construe that the

defendants have any plausible defence. The averments in the plaint and the

evidence of PW-1 by way of the affidavit Ex. PW-1/A are deemed to have

been admitted.

31. On the aspect of computation of damages, plaintiff has examined

Mr. Santosh Kumar, the L icensing Compliance Manager of plaintiff no.2,

as PW-2. PW-2 deposed that the computation of damages can be reckoned

on the basis of loss that occurred to the plaintiff, the loss being represented

by the value of profit that the plaintiffs could have made, had the

defendants used genuine copies of the plaintiffs’ software programs. He

further deposes that having examined the details of unauthorized software

usage mentioned in the plaint and the relevant documents regarding Phone-

Home data which are part of the record, he opined that the defendants

indulged in the illegal use of the pirated copies of the SolidWorks software

program on at least seven machines for their commercial and business

activities.

32. He further deposed that there is no production or establishment costs

for these software programmers, hence the current market value of the said

programs is the net profit earned by the plaintiffs. Thus, the quantum of

loss is the total market costs of such programs as it were on the date of

filing of the suit in 2021. He affirmed the approximate value of the

software program in the year 2021 as under:

CS(COMM) 334/2021 Page 13 of 15

“7. I affirm that in 2021 the approximate value of the software program of

the Plaintiffs were as follows:

Sl.No. Software Cost Per Unit

(In INR)

(excluding taxes)

Total Cost (In INR)

(including 18%

GST)

1. SOLIDWORKS 7,84,376 9,25,563

33. He further deposed that the defendants have been using the

pirated/unauthorized software of the SolidWorks software program on at

least seven computer systems on which the computation of loss could be

reckoned at Rs.64,79,941/-. He would depose that had the defendants

lawfully purchased the licensed solid work software program from the

plaintiff for authorized use on seven computer systems, the damages to the

extent of Rs.64,79,941/- would be the genuine purchase cost of the

software.

34. Overall, PW-2 deposed that in all, the substantial loss caused to the

plaintiff on its credibility and reputation in the market and the injury

caused by such infringement entitles the plaintiff to claim an amount of Rs.

2,00,01,000/- from the defendants. If the sum of Rs. 64,79,941/- is added,

the total sum on account of damages and loss of potential revenue etc.

would be to the tune of Rs. 2,64,80,941/-.

35. As noted above, the defendant no.2 appeared before the Court only

once, i.e., on 12.05.2022 and has not entered appearance thereafter the

defendants were proceeded ex-parte on 15.09.2022. Also, they neither had

any written statement rebutting the averments in the suit nor were the

plaintiff’s witnesses cross- examined on any point. In fact, they were

proceeded ex-parte on 05.09.2022. In such circumstances, the averments in

the plaint as also the depositions of the PWs and the documents marked as

exhibits by such witnesses are deemed to have been admitted requiring no

further corroboration on any material aspect, in terms of Rule 4 of the

CS(COMM) 334/2021 Page 14 of 15

Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, the same are deemed to

have been admitted.

36. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to Order VIII Rule 10 of

CPC. The said rule reads as under: -

“10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for

by Court.— Where any party from whom a written statement is required

under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted

or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce

judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it

thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be

drawn up.”

Thus, in the facts of the case, the principle provided in Order VIII

Rule 10 in CPC would apply and this Court can proceed to pronounce the

judgment.

37. The plaintiff has been able to establish loss of revenue and damages

to the extent of Rs.64,79,941/- and is held entitled to the same.

38. The plaintiffs have also filed a statement of costs dated 19.03.2024,

in respect of court fees, legal costs and miscellaneous expenses. As per the

statement of costs, the total expenditure incurred by the plaintiffs (i)

Rs.2,00,000/- towards payment of Court Fees on the suit plant; (ii) incurred

expenses of Rs.21,000/- on account of having filed the present suit and

also; (iii) incurred expenses of Rs.1,00,013/- towards legal fees. There is

no reason why this Court should not believe the statement of expenses

incurred by the plaintiffs, therefore, the plaintiffs would be entitled to a

total sum of Rs.3,21,013/- as costs.

39. In view of the aforesaid analysis, a decree of permanent injunction is

passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in terms of

prayer clauses 52(a) and 52(b) of the plaint:

a. A decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their

agents, franchisees, servants and all others acting for and on their behalf,

CS(COMM) 334/2021 Page 15 of 15

from directly or indirectly copying, reproducing, storing, installing and/or

using pirated/unlicensed software programs of Plaintiffs including

SOLIDWORKS and its various versions or any other software programs

developed by the Plaintiffs in any manner that may amount to

infringement of the Plaintiff No. 1’s copyright subsisting in its software

programs and software related documentation.

b. An order for delivery-up to the Plaintiffs, of all the unlicensed copies of

the Plaintiffs’ software, and/or articles/ software, the duplicating

equipment used in the copying of the Plaintiffs’ software, including

computers, compact disc writers, stampers, burners, “plates”, hard disks,

diskettes, packaging and advertising material, labels, stationery articles

and all other infringing material under Section 58 of the Act;

40. Accordingly, the suit is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and

defendants in terms of para 52(d) and 52(e) of the prayer clauses in the

plaint. The plaintiffs are entitled to, (i) a sum of Rs.64,79,941/ - as cost and

damages; (ii) a sum of Rs.3,21,013/- as legal costs, to be paid by the

defendants jointly and severally.

41. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.

42. The present suit is hereby decreed and disposed of in above terms,

alongwith the pending applications.

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

(JUDGE)

APRIL 8, 2026/rl/anj