Bengaluru Court Dismisses US Non-Profit Pathways Foundation's ₹2 Crore Copyright Suit Against App Developer

A Bengaluru commercial court has dismissed a copyright infringement suit filed by Chicago-based non-profit Pathways Foundation against Indian app developer Arpit Roy. The court held that the foundation failed to prove infringement of its copyrighted resources and videos and rejected its claim for ₹2 crore in punitive damages.

Judge Arjun S. Mallur passed the order on June 1 while dismissing the suit with costs.

"There is no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove infringement of its copyrighted resources and videos by the defendant," the court observed.

Pathways Foundation operates in the field of pediatric development. It runs the website [www.pathways.org](http://www.pathways.org) and a mobile application called "Baby Milestones App". The foundation alleged that Roy copied its modules, videos and other resources and used them in two applications, "Baby Development: Milestones" and "Baby Steps: Baby Development", which were available on Apple's App Store.

According to the foundation, Roy copied its resources, removed its logo or watermark from videos and overlaid his own logo. It also alleged that he commercially exploited the content. The foundation sought a permanent injunction and ₹2 crore in punitive damages.

Roy contended that his applications did not host videos directly. Instead, they embedded YouTube URLs. He argued that his YouTube channel was terminated following a copyright strike in January 2024. He further stated that the "Baby Development: Milestones" app was removed from the App Store in January 2024. The "Baby Steps: Baby Development" app was subsequently removed by Apple in June 2024.

The court noted that Apple had removed both applications from its territories. It found that the plaintiff had not produced satisfactory evidence to show that infringement continued thereafter.

"Subsequent to 03.06.2024 to substantiate that the defendant continue to infringe the copyrighted resources, modules and videos of the plaintiff on his apps no cogent and satisfactory evidence is before the Court," the court held.

The court also found that screenshots relied upon by the plaintiff did not contain dates from which continuing infringement could be inferred.

During cross-examination, the foundation's authorised representative stated that another application run by Roy continued to infringe the plaintiff's rights. The court found no supporting material on record for that assertion.

"The said answer given in the cross-examination clearly manifest that except the self servicing affidavit of P.W.1 there is no other material or evidence on record to conclude that there has been another app run by the defendant which continued to show the materials belonging to the plaintiff being infringed by the defendant," the court observed.

The court further noted that the defendant's evidence showed that the applications hosted YouTube URL links. It also recorded the testimony of the plaintiff's witness that no videos belonging to the plaintiff were found on the "Baby Steps: Baby Development" application and that her grievance related to the text appearing on the application.

On that aspect, the court observed: "The texts which are found in the defendant application though may correspond to what that has been found in the plaintiff's pathways.org app nevertheless they are not unique but are generic in nature which anybody can easily accessed to and also of common usage."

The foundation also alleged that Roy charged users to access the content. The court found no evidence supporting that allegation.

"To substantiate the said contention the plaintiff has produced screenshot of the defendant app which is marked as Ex.P.8 and no wherein in the said screenshot there is any mention regarding the user being required to pay certain fees for making use of the said videos," the court held.

Referring to the Delhi High Court's decision in Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Reckitt Benckiser India Limited, the court observed that punitive damages cannot be granted independently without first establishing entitlement to general damages. Having found that the plaintiff failed to prove infringement, the court declined to award damages.

The suit was accordingly dismissed with costs.

For Pathways Foundation: Advocate Apabharana K M