{"id":169571,"date":"2011-08-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011"},"modified":"2018-12-08T01:15:50","modified_gmt":"2018-12-07T19:45:50","slug":"vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Vitasta Publishing Private Ltd. vs Georg Thieme Verlag Kg on 8 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Vitasta Publishing Private Ltd. vs Georg Thieme Verlag Kg on 8 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: V. K. Jain<\/div>\n
         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                          Judgment Reserved on: 04.08.2011\n                           Judgment Pronounced on: 08.08.2011\n\n\n+ CS(OS) No. 2152\/2010 & CS(OS) No. 973\/2010\n\nVITASTA PUBLISHING PRIVATE LTD                     .....Plaintiff\n\n\n                                      - versus -\n\nGEORG THIEME VERLAG KG                             .....Defendant\n\nAdvocates who appeared in this case:\nFor the Plaintiff: Mr. Rahul Beruar, Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan\n                   and Mr. Subhash Bhutoria\nFor the Defendant: Mr. Pramod B. Agarwala, Mr. Peeush\n                       Sharma and Mr. Anuj P. Agarwal,\n                       Advocates for D-1 & 2\n                       Mr. Ram Watel, Advocate for D-3 & 4\n\nCORAM:-\nHON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN\n\n1. Whether Reporters of local papers may\n   be allowed to see the judgment?                            Yes\n\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                     Yes\n\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported                    Yes\n   in Digest?\n\n\n\nV.K. JAIN, J.\n<\/pre>\n
IA No. 10286\/2011 (u\/O 7. R. 14 CPC) & IA No.
\n10287\/2011 (u\/S. 151 CPC) in CS(OS) No. 2152\/2010<\/p>\n
IA No. 6590\/2010 (u\/O 39 R. 1&2 CPC), IA No.<\/p>\n
CS(OS) No. 2152\/2010 & CS(OS) No. 973\/2010              Page 1 of 17<\/span>
\n 11430\/2010 (u\/O 39 R. 4 CPC), IA No. 11431\/2010 (u\/O
\n39 R. 1 CPC) and IA No. 14337\/2010 (u\/O 39 R. 1&4
\nCPC) in CS(OS) No. 973\/2010<\/p>\n
1.           The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a<\/p>\n
Cooperation Agreement dated 19th December 2005, whereby<\/p>\n
the plaintiff was granted exclusive rights to market and<\/p>\n
promote,         throughout          the     territory   specified     in     the<\/p>\n
agreement,          the     then       current    publishing    programme<\/p>\n
(excluding the on-line products) of the defendant to the<\/p>\n
extent they were available for sale in the specified territory.<\/p>\n
This was followed by a second Cooperation Agreement<\/p>\n
effecting from 1st January 2008, for a fixed tenure of three<\/p>\n
years.\n<\/p>\n
2.           The parties also entered into separate Exclusive<\/p>\n
Reprint Agreements in respect of 27 titles mentioned in para<\/p>\n
4.8 of the plaint. Under the agreements for reprint rights,<\/p>\n
the plaintiff was required to pay an agreed sum, mentioned<\/p>\n
in each agreement, to the defendant as licence fee, within<\/p>\n
90 days from the date of the invoice.                      Para 12 of the<\/p>\n
agreement provided that in the event of the publisher i.e.<\/p>\n
the plaintiff failing to comply with any of the terms and<\/p>\n
conditions of the agreement, and such breach or default<\/p>\n
CS(OS) No. 2152\/2010 & CS(OS) No. 973\/2010                           Page 2 of 17<\/span>
\n remaining unremedied for a period of 30 days after notice<\/p>\n
thereof by the defendant\/owner to the plaintiff\/publisher,<\/p>\n
then, at the option of the defendant\/owner to be exercised<\/p>\n
in writing, the rights granted to the plaintiff\/publisher were<\/p>\n
to revert back to the owner\/defendant without prejudice to<\/p>\n
its rights to damages for such breach or breaches.<\/p>\n
3.           The case of the plaintiff is that being the exclusive<\/p>\n
licencee for India it is the owner of copyright in those 27<\/p>\n
titles, subject matter of the Reprint Agreements, and these<\/p>\n
Reprint Agreements could be terminated only in the event of<\/p>\n
plaintiff committing breach of any of their terms or<\/p>\n
conditions and further on its failing to remedy the breach<\/p>\n
within 30 days of the receipt of the written notice from the<\/p>\n
defendant.         This is also the case of the plaintiff that the<\/p>\n
defendant was importing, printing, publishing, selling and<\/p>\n
distributing the “Subject Works” without its permission<\/p>\n
which amounts to infringement of its copyright in those<\/p>\n
works.\n<\/p>\n
4.           Suit CS(OS) No. 973\/2010 has been filed seeking<\/p>\n
injunction against infringement of copyright of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
and injunction against breach of the Cooperation Agreement<\/p>\n
2008, besides seeking delivery up of all the infringing copies<\/p>\n
CS(OS) No. 2152\/2010 & CS(OS) No. 973\/2010               Page 3 of 17<\/span>
\n of publications that violate the right claimed by the plaintiff<\/p>\n
in “Subject Works”.              In particular, the plaintiff is seeking<\/p>\n
injunction         restraining         the   defendant   from   printing,<\/p>\n
publishing, selling or importing any of the aforesaid 21 titles<\/p>\n
in India.\n<\/p>\n
             The suit has been contested by the defendants.<\/p>\n
With respect to licences for reprints, it is alleged that as per<\/p>\n
arrangement between the parties, the plaintiff would secure<\/p>\n
an order from a pharmaceutical company for customized<\/p>\n
bulk supply, then obtain a quotation from a printer for<\/p>\n
printing the specified quantities as per that order, and then<\/p>\n
produce a profit and loss account as per a mutually agreed<\/p>\n
format. On the basis of such accounting, an amount was<\/p>\n
agreed and put into the Reprint Licence Agreement.                     This<\/p>\n
amount was equivalent to the net sales proceeded, minus<\/p>\n
printing cost and the plaintiff was paid 16.5 % commission<\/p>\n
based on the amount arrived at and this amount was<\/p>\n
included in the Reprint Licence Agreement. It was always<\/p>\n
understood and agreed that such reprints were to be of a<\/p>\n
onetime fixed quantity to a specified customer, within a<\/p>\n
specified time and were not for sale in the open market. A<\/p>\n
clause was accordingly inserted on the reprints stating<\/p>\n
CS(OS) No. 2152\/2010 & CS(OS) No. 973\/2010                      Page 4 of 17<\/span>
\n therein that they were for pharmaceutical market and not<\/p>\n
for resale in the trade market.              It was also alleged in the<\/p>\n
Written Statement that a sizeable amount was due to<\/p>\n
defendant No.1 from the plaintiff towards licence fee as well<\/p>\n
as towards unpaid invoices for the books which the plaintiff<\/p>\n
had taken to resell on its own account. Vide interim order<\/p>\n
dated 17th May, 2010 this Court restrained the defendants<\/p>\n
from importing and\/or selling directly or indirectly the<\/p>\n
books covered in the agreement with the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
5.           Vide notice dated 22nd September 2010 sent to the<\/p>\n
plaintiff through counsel, the defendant, referring to the<\/p>\n
agreement for reprint, informed the plaintiff that it had not<\/p>\n
paid the licence fee in respect of the agreements referred in<\/p>\n
para 1 of the notice, despite more than 90 days having<\/p>\n
expired from the invoice and thereby committed breach of<\/p>\n
the terms of the agreements. The plaintiff was called upon<\/p>\n
to comply with the terms of the agreements to pay the<\/p>\n
invoiced amount in respect of each of the agreements<\/p>\n
mentioned in para 1 of the notice, to the defendant, within<\/p>\n
30 days of the receipt of the notice, failing which the rights<\/p>\n
granted to the plaintiff under the aforesaid agreements were<\/p>\n
to stand reverted to the defendant automatically without<\/p>\n
CS(OS) No. 2152\/2010 & CS(OS) No. 973\/2010                    Page 5 of 17<\/span>
\n further notice and without prejudice to its rights to claim<\/p>\n
damages for the breach alleged to have been committed by<\/p>\n
it. As many as 21 titles were mentioned in para 1 of the<\/p>\n
notice.\n<\/p>\n
6.           Suit CS(OS) No. 2152\/2010 has been filed by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff      seeking       declaration         that    notice    dated     22 nd<\/p>\n
September, 2010 is illegal and also seeking injunction<\/p>\n
restraining the defendant from revoking exclusive rights<\/p>\n
granted to the plaintiff under the Reprint Agreements<\/p>\n
mentioned in the notice.\n<\/p>\n
             In the Written Statement the defendant has alleged<\/p>\n
that a sum of Euro 73835 was due from the plaintiff<\/p>\n
towards licence fees as claimed in the notice. It is further<\/p>\n
alleged that out of 27 agreements between the parties, 21<\/p>\n
have      already       been       terminated       by    the     notice   dated<\/p>\n
22nd      September           2010,          whereas     the    remaining       06<\/p>\n
agreements are subject matter of dispute in CS(OS) No.<\/p>\n
973\/2010.\n<\/p>\n
7.           Vide interim order dated 25th October, 2010, this<\/p>\n
Court directed that the plaintiff shall be entitled to sell or<\/p>\n
distribute the books which it had already published and<\/p>\n
printed under its agreement with the defendant company,<\/p>\n
CS(OS) No. 2152\/2010 & CS(OS) No. 973\/2010                            Page 6 of 17<\/span>
\n subject      to     the     condition        that   it   shall   maintain      an<\/p>\n
independent account in respect of the books which are<\/p>\n
distributed and\/or sold or on after 25th October, 2010. As<\/p>\n
far as Cooperation Agreement is concerned, as noted by this<\/p>\n
Court vide order dated 20th January, 2011 passed in CS(OS)<\/p>\n
No. 2512\/2010, its term having expired on 31st December,<\/p>\n
2008, it does not subsist anymore and plaintiff has no legal<\/p>\n
right to seek its continuance thereafter.<\/p>\n
8.           While dismissing IA No. 14182\/2010 filed by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff for grant of interim injunction in CS(OS) No.<\/p>\n
2512\/2010 and allowing IA No. 16463\/2010 filed by the<\/p>\n
defendant, under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacating the<\/p>\n
interim order passed by the Court in that Suit on 25 th<\/p>\n
October, 2010, this Court inter alia observed as under:<\/p>\n
               The e-mail dated 25th September 2008
\n               was replied by Mr. Sudesh on the same
\n               day. Mr. Sudesh informed Mr. Malik that
\n               he was trying to find out his resources to
\n               give response to him. He also noted that
\n               the plaintiff was being given only six
\n               months’ time to pay and wind up
\n               operations with Thieme and wanted to
\n               know what would be the arrangement,
\n               thereafter.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               It is thus quite clear that the offer made
\n               by the defendant vide e-mail dated 25th
\n               September 2008 to the plaintiff company
\n               was not accepted by the plaintiff<\/p>\n
CS(OS) No. 2152\/2010 & CS(OS) No. 973\/2010                           Page 7 of 17<\/span>
\n                company. Hence, the plaintiff can take
\n               no advantage from the terms contained in
\n               this e-mail, including the offer to restrict
\n               the previous debt to Euro 12000.
\n               Assuming that offer made vide e-mail
\n               dated 25th September 2008 sent by Mr.
\n               Malik to Mr. Sudesh is still open for
\n               acceptance by the plaintiff, this would
\n               require not only payment of Euro 12000
\n               by the plaintiff to the defendant, it would
\n               also mean that the reprint agreement
\n               between the parties would have come to
\n               an end on 31st March 2009 and
\n               consequently the plaintiff would have no
\n               right to publish any of the titles, which
\n               were    subject     matters    of    reprint
\n               agreements, w.e.f. 1st April 2009.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               The contention of the learned counsel for
\n               the    plaintiff    is   that  the   reprint
\n               agreements between the parties were
\n               open ended, without any time limit
\n               having been fixed for publication of the
\n               titles subject matters of the agreements.
\n               Assuming this to be correct, the plaintiff
\n               can publish those titles only subject to
\n               payment of the licence fee fixed under
\n               each agreement. Admittedly, the plaintiff
\n               has not paid the agreed licence fee within
\n               90 days from the date of the invoice, as
\n               was stipulated in the reprint agreements.
\n               In fact, even today the plaintiff is not
\n               ready to pay the licence fee stipulated in
\n               the reprint agreements executed between
\n               the parties. What the plaintiff wants is to
\n               take the advantage of the reprint
\n               agreements       in    order  to   continue
\n               publishing the titles subject matters of
\n               the reprint agreements forever, while at
\n               the same time take advantage of a part of
\n               the offer made by Mr. Malik of the
\n               defendant company to Mr. Sudesh of the
\n               plaintiff company by offering to pay only<\/p>\n
CS(OS) No. 2152\/2010 & CS(OS) No. 973\/2010               Page 8 of 17<\/span>
\n                Euro 12000. This, to my mind is not
\n               permissible in law and available to the
\n               plaintiff company. Firstly, the offer made
\n               vide e-mail dated 25th September 2009
\n               was never accepted by the plaintiff
\n               company. More importantly, under that
\n               offer, the plaintiff has no right to publish
\n               any title, subject matter of the reprint
\n               agreement after 31st March 2009. In any
\n               case, the plaintiff could not have accepted
\n               and offer in part. It had\/has to be either
\n               accepted or rejected as a whole.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.           Vide IA No. 10286\/2011, the plaintiff has sought<\/p>\n
to   file    additional        documents           comprising      exchange          of<\/p>\n
communication             through        e-mail,         whereas   vide     IA     No.<\/p>\n
10287\/2011, it has sought permission to reprint, distribute<\/p>\n
and\/or sell the 21 titles, subject matter of the Reprint<\/p>\n
Agreements, which are covered by the notice of the<\/p>\n
defendant dated 22nd September, 2010. IA No. 11430\/2010<\/p>\n
and IA No. 11431\/2010 have been filed by defendants No. 1<\/p>\n
& 2 in CS(OS) No. 973\/2010 seeking vacation\/modification<\/p>\n
of interim order dated 17th May, 2010 and seeking<\/p>\n
injunction         against       the         plaintiff    restraining     it     from<\/p>\n
printing\/selling the subject works.                      IA No. 6590\/2010 has<\/p>\n
been filed by the plaintiff for grant of injunction restraining<\/p>\n
the defendants from reproducing the plaintiff’s “Subject<\/p>\n
Works” in any manner.                   IA No. 11930\/2010 and IA No.<\/p>\n
CS(OS) No. 2152\/2010 & CS(OS) No. 973\/2010                                Page 9 of 17<\/span>
\n 14337\/2010 has been filed by defendant No. 1 & 2 seeking<\/p>\n
vacation\/modification of the interim order passed by this<\/p>\n
Court on 17th May, 2010 and 6th September, 2010 in CS(OS)<\/p>\n
No. 973\/2010.\n<\/p>\n
10.          As noted earlier, it is an admitted position that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff before this Court has not paid the agreed licence<\/p>\n
fees in respect of 21 out of the 27 Reprint Agreements<\/p>\n
between the parties.              The case of the plaintiff during the<\/p>\n
course of arguments before this Court was that the<\/p>\n
defendant had agreed to accept a sum of Euro 12000 from<\/p>\n
the plaintiff towards a composite licence fees in respect of<\/p>\n
27 agreements; the plaintiff made payment of Euro 1987 to<\/p>\n
the defendant on 19 th January, 2009 and the rest of the<\/p>\n
payment was agreed to be made in installments. It was also<\/p>\n
informed during arguments that the balance payment has<\/p>\n
also been deposited by the plaintiff during pendency of the<\/p>\n
suit.\n<\/p>\n
11.          I have carefully perused the exchange of e-mails<\/p>\n
between the parties.              I have also taken into consideration<\/p>\n
the copies of e-mails which the plaintiff did not file initially<\/p>\n
but has filed along with IA No. 10286\/2011.               Vide e-mail<\/p>\n
dated 16th August, 2008 Mr. Malik of the defendant<\/p>\n
CS(OS) No. 2152\/2010 & CS(OS) No. 973\/2010                   Page 10 of 17<\/span>
\n company, informed Mr. Sudesh of the plaintiff company that<\/p>\n
as per their calculations, they were to receive approximately<\/p>\n
Euro 51000 from the plaintiff and that he would try to get<\/p>\n
the defendant to accept a onetime payment of Euro 15000<\/p>\n
and close the books. He sought confirmation of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
in this regard. Vide e-mail 18th August, 2000 Mr. Sudesh<\/p>\n
informed Mr. Malik that plaintiff would be more confortable<\/p>\n
paying Euro 10000 but asked him to negotiate this further.<\/p>\n
Vide e-mail 24th September, 2008, Mr. Malik informed Mr.<\/p>\n
Sudesh that he would go for payment of Euro 12000 in<\/p>\n
installments and that around Euro 3, 5 or 4 could be paid<\/p>\n
by the plaintiff to start with. There was no response from<\/p>\n
the plaintiff company to the offer made by Mr. Malik to the<\/p>\n
plaintiff company vide e-mail dated 24th September, 2008.<\/p>\n
As already discussed by me in order dated 20 th January,<\/p>\n
2011 vide e-mail dated 25th September 2008 sent by Mr.<\/p>\n
Malik of the defendant company to Mr. Sudesh of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff company, the defendant informed the plaintiff that<\/p>\n
he had obtained official agreement from the Directorate at<\/p>\n
Thieme to reduce the old business debt to Euro and had<\/p>\n
also obtained the agreement that they would continue their<\/p>\n
relationship between the parties until 31st March, 2009 after<\/p>\n
CS(OS) No. 2152\/2010 & CS(OS) No. 973\/2010         Page 11 of 17<\/span>
\n which they would stop the business relationship. The<\/p>\n
plaintiff was requested to give suggestion as to how balance<\/p>\n
payment could be made by 31st March, 2009.                   A written<\/p>\n
agreement was also suggested so that the amount of Euro<\/p>\n
35000 could be written off. In reply, Mr. Sudesh informed<\/p>\n
that he was trying to find his resources to give response to<\/p>\n
him. He also noted that the plaintiff was being given only<\/p>\n
06 months time to wind up operations with the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
sought to know what arrangement would thereafter be.<\/p>\n
12.          Vide e-mail dated 3rd December, 2008 Mr. Malik<\/p>\n
informed Mr. Sudesh that the official take was that they<\/p>\n
were going to cooperate until 31st March, 2009 and until<\/p>\n
then, the plaintiff would pay Euro 12000 to the defendant.<\/p>\n
He also informed that until that time, the defendant would<\/p>\n
give full support to the plaintiff with samples and timely<\/p>\n
delivery of orders etc.              Again, there was no acceptance of<\/p>\n
the offer made by Mr. Malik to the plaintiff company.                  No<\/p>\n
reply was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, agreeing to<\/p>\n
pay Euro 12000 to the defendant and further agreeing to<\/p>\n
stop cooperation between the parties after 31 st March, 2009.<\/p>\n
Vide e-mail dated 12th January, 2009 Mr. Sudesh informed<\/p>\n
Mr. Malik about transfer of Euro 1987 to the defendant on<\/p>\n
CS(OS) No. 2152\/2010 & CS(OS) No. 973\/2010                   Page 12 of 17<\/span>
\n 9th January, 2009 and stated that rest they could talk when<\/p>\n
they meet. He further made it clear that the plaintiff was in<\/p>\n
no position to pay what he had said, by March. Thus, the<\/p>\n
plaintiff company clearly refused the offer of the defendant<\/p>\n
to make payment of Euro 12000 and stop cooperation<\/p>\n
between the parties by 31st March, 2009. Mr. Malik writing<\/p>\n
to the plaintiff company that they were going to cooperate<\/p>\n
only until 31st March, 2009 clearly implied that payment of<\/p>\n
Euro 12000 was to be made by that date. Exactly same was<\/p>\n
the understanding of the plaintiff with respect to the offer<\/p>\n
made by Mr. Malik on behalf of the defendant company as is<\/p>\n
evident from Mr. Sudesh saying “Vitasta is in no position to<\/p>\n
pay what you said by March”. In view of this e-mail which<\/p>\n
is a document relied upon by the plaintiff itself, it cannot be<\/p>\n
disputed that the offer of the defendant to accept Euro<\/p>\n
12000 in full and final settlement of the liability of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff under the Licence Agreements by 31st March, 2009<\/p>\n
was expressly rejected by the plaintiff company.      There is<\/p>\n
absolutely no material on record to indicate that the<\/p>\n
defendant company had agreed to accept any part of the<\/p>\n
payment beyond March, 2009. This is evident from the e-<\/p>\n
mail dated 13th January, 2009 sent by Mr. Malik to Mr.<\/p>\n
CS(OS) No. 2152\/2010 & CS(OS) No. 973\/2010           Page 13 of 17<\/span>
\n Sudesh whereby he stated “if the full payment cannot be<\/p>\n
made by March, I will have a serious problem”.                     He also<\/p>\n
sought to know whether partial payment could be made if<\/p>\n
so, to what amount.                  There was no response from the<\/p>\n
plaintiff company to this e-mail from Mr. Malik meaning<\/p>\n
thereby that the plaintiff company was not ready even to<\/p>\n
commit a partial payment in reply to the e-mail dated 13th<\/p>\n
January, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
13.          From       the above referred exchange           of    e-mail<\/p>\n
between the parties, it appears to me that the offer made by<\/p>\n
the defendant company to accept a sum of Euro 12000 from<\/p>\n
the plaintiff company by 31st March, 2009 was never<\/p>\n
accepted by the plaintiff company and therefore it did not<\/p>\n
result into a concluded contract between the parties for<\/p>\n
payment of Euro 12000 in full and final settlement of all the<\/p>\n
dues of the defendant company.\n<\/p>\n
14.          A perusal of the agreement for reprint rights would<\/p>\n
show that the rights and licences granted by the defendant<\/p>\n
to the plaintiff were subject to the terms stipulated therein<\/p>\n
including payment of the same specified in the agreement as<\/p>\n
licence fees and the due date for payment was 90 days from<\/p>\n
the date of the invoice.                Since the licence granted to the<\/p>\n
CS(OS) No. 2152\/2010 & CS(OS) No. 973\/2010                     Page 14 of 17<\/span>
\n plaintiff company was conditional on payment of the licence<\/p>\n
fees within 90 days from the date of invoice and admittedly<\/p>\n
payment in terms of the agreement was not made, the<\/p>\n
defendant was very much entitled in law to give a notice to<\/p>\n
the plaintiff company requiring it to pay the amount of the<\/p>\n
licence fees within 30 days of the receipt of the notice and<\/p>\n
was also right in stating that in case of failing of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
to make payment of the licence fees, the rights granted to it<\/p>\n
under the agreements were to revert back to the defendant<\/p>\n
automatically without further notice. Since the plaintiff had<\/p>\n
not only committed breach of the terms of the licence by not<\/p>\n
making payment of the licence fees within 90 days from the<\/p>\n
date of the invoices, but had also failed to make the<\/p>\n
aforesaid payment within the time stipulated in the notice<\/p>\n
dated 22nd November, 2010, it is not entitled to exercise any<\/p>\n
right under the 21 reprint agreements, licence fees for<\/p>\n
which have not been paid to the defendant company.                 IA<\/p>\n
10287\/2011 is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
15.          As regards 06 licences, licence fees for which is<\/p>\n
stated to have been paid to the defendant company, the<\/p>\n
plaintiff can continue to exercise the rights which were<\/p>\n
CS(OS) No. 2152\/2010 & CS(OS) No. 973\/2010              Page 15 of 17<\/span>
\n granted to it under the licences subject matter of those 06<\/p>\n
agreements.\n<\/p>\n
16.          A perusal of the documents filed by the parties<\/p>\n
would show that the books reprinted by the plaintiff carried<\/p>\n
the inscriptions “ISBN 3-13-139781-0(GTV) Indian Reprint<\/p>\n
ISBN 81-8976612-0. This edition is licenced for distribution<\/p>\n
in India only as pharmaceutical premium and its sale is<\/p>\n
prohibited in the trade. Printed in India: Pocket Atlas of<\/p>\n
Endodontics           Published         by   Vitasta   Publishing      Private<\/p>\n
Limited (Representing Thieme International for the South<\/p>\n
Asia Region)”. The plaintiff company while reprinting 06<\/p>\n
titles subject matter of licences fees for which stands paid to<\/p>\n
the defendant would continue to carry the above referred<\/p>\n
inscription and will sell the books only as pharmaceuticals<\/p>\n
premium. The plaintiff company will not be entitled to sell<\/p>\n
those books in the trade meaning thereby that the book can<\/p>\n
be sold only to pharmaceuticals companies and nobody else.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff company would keep true and faithful accounts<\/p>\n
of the printing and distribution of these 06 titles including<\/p>\n
the profits made by it from sale of the aforesaid 06 titles.<\/p>\n
             The      interim       orders    stand    modified     and      the<\/p>\n
applications stand disposed of in terms of this order.<\/p>\n
CS(OS) No. 2152\/2010 & CS(OS) No. 973\/2010                          Page 16 of 17<\/span>
\n CS(OS) No. 2152\/2010 & CS(OS) No. 973\/2010<\/p>\n
             List for framing of issues on 1st February, 2012.<\/p>\n
                                              (V.K. JAIN)
\n                                                JUDGE
\nAUGUST 08, 2011
\nvn<\/p>\n
CS(OS) No. 2152\/2010 & CS(OS) No. 973\/2010              Page 17 of 17<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Vitasta Publishing Private Ltd. vs Georg Thieme Verlag Kg on 8 August, 2011 Author: V. K. Jain THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 04.08.2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 08.08.2011 + CS(OS) No. 2152\/2010 & CS(OS) No. 973\/2010 VITASTA PUBLISHING PRIVATE LTD …..Plaintiff – versus – GEORG THIEME […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-169571","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVitasta Publishing Private Ltd. vs Georg Thieme Verlag Kg on 8 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vitasta Publishing Private Ltd. vs Georg Thieme Verlag Kg on 8 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-07T19:45:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vitasta Publishing Private Ltd. vs Georg Thieme Verlag Kg on 8 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-07T19:45:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3304,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Vitasta Publishing Private Ltd. vs Georg Thieme Verlag Kg on 8 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-07T19:45:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vitasta Publishing Private Ltd. vs Georg Thieme Verlag Kg on 8 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vitasta Publishing Private Ltd. vs Georg Thieme Verlag Kg on 8 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vitasta Publishing Private Ltd. vs Georg Thieme Verlag Kg on 8 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-07T19:45:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vitasta Publishing Private Ltd. vs Georg Thieme Verlag Kg on 8 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-07T19:45:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011"},"wordCount":3304,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011","name":"Vitasta Publishing Private Ltd. vs Georg Thieme Verlag Kg on 8 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-07T19:45:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vitasta-publishing-private-ltd-vs-georg-thieme-verlag-kg-on-8-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vitasta Publishing Private Ltd. vs Georg Thieme Verlag Kg on 8 August, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169571","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=169571"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169571\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=169571"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=169571"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=169571"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}