Delhi High Court Restrains Publisher From Selling 8 Books Over Alleged Copyright Infringement Of Taxmann Headnotes

The Delhi High Court has restrained Commercial Law Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd. from publishing or selling eight publications allegedly containing verbatim copies of copyright-protected headnotes authored by Taxmann Allied Services Pvt. Ltd.

Justice Vikas Mahajan passed an ex parte interim injunction on November 2, observing that the publishers had copied Taxmann's original headnotes rather than independently deriving legal propositions from judgments. The court also noted that the copied material included Taxmann's distinctive way of identifying and presenting legal principles.

Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, appearing for Taxmann, submitted that the company prepares original headnotes through its in-house editorial and research team of over 200 professionals.

He explained that preparing a headnote requires reading and analysing an entire judgment, identifying the legal issue decided, selecting the relevant facts and independently presenting the legal proposition.

Taxmann alleged that Commercial Law Publishers had reproduced substantial portions of its headnotes in eight publications, including Direct Tax Law & Practice (Professional Edition), Income Tax Act, 1961 and Taxation of Salaried Employees and Pensioners.

It claimed that at least 55 headnotes had been copied in Deductions to Be Made in Computing Total Income. In Direct Tax Law & Practice, the company alleged that 280 headnotes had been reproduced.

In several instances, the publishers had allegedly acknowledged TAXMANN.COM as the source immediately below the copied headnotes.

The court found merit in Taxmann's submissions, observing that the publishers had not merely referred to or independently derived legal propositions from the underlying judgments. They had reproduced Taxmann's original headnotes verbatim, including its distinctive manner of identifying, distilling and presenting the relevant legal proposition and the operative aspect of the judgment.

The court observed, “In view of the above, this Court find merit in the submission of Mr. Deepak that the defendants have not merely referred to, or independently derived a legal proposition from the underlying judgment, but have verbatim copied the plaintiff's copyright-protected original headnote, including the plaintiff's distinctive manner of identifying, distilling and presenting the relevant legal proposition and the operative aspect of the judgment.”

The court held that Taxmann had made out a prima facie case for an interim injunction. It observed that the company would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction was not granted and that the balance of convenience also favoured Taxmann.

The court restrained Commercial Law Publishers, the other parties sued, and their directors, partners, proprietors, officers, servants, agents, distributors and retailers from printing, publishing, reproducing, distributing, selling, offering for sale or advertising the eight publications. The restraint also covers any other publication containing Taxmann's headnotes or substantial reproductions of them, or otherwise dealing with such publications.

The injunction will remain in force until the next hearing on March 2, 2027.