The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Universal City Studios Productions LLLP & Ors. v. Movies123.la & Ors., CS(COMM) 402/2024 and other connected IAs, dated May 16, 2024, granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against rogue websites streaming copyrighted content of the Plaintiffs without authorization. The Court also granted a dynamic injunction to protect future works and permitted the Plaintiffs to implead mirror/redirect/alphanumeric variations of the infringing websites.
Facts of the Case:
The Plaintiffs, Universal City Studios Productions LLLP and five other companies, are leading global entertainment companies engaged in the business of creation, production, and distribution of motion pictures/cinematograph films. The works created by the Plaintiffs include sound recordings accompanied with visuals, which qualify as cinematograph films under Section 2(f) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and are entitled to protection by virtue of Section 13(1) read with Sections 13(2) and (5) of the Act. The Plaintiffs are members of the Motion Pictures Association (MPA) and are represented by common counsel.
The Plaintiffs claim to have exclusive rights under Section 14(d) read with Section 17 of the Act in their cinematograph films (Plaintiffs' works). An illustrative list of these works has been included in the plaint. The Plaintiffs' grievance is against Defendant Nos. 1-26, who are hosting and operating infringing domains/websites that carry and disseminate the Plaintiffs' copyrighted works without any license or authorization. The Plaintiffs have provided a table listing the infringing domains/websites operated by the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs have also provided an illustrative list of their works that have been unauthorizedly made available by the Defendant Nos. 1-26. Legal notices were sent to these infringing domains/websites to take down the infringing content. However, none of them responded, except for Defendant Nos. 13-14. Defendant No. 13 stated in an email dated May 10, 2024, that they had removed the requested content, while an email by the Domain Name Registrar (DNR) of Defendant No. 14 stated that the domain name had been suspended.
The Plaintiffs have relied on numerous previous orders of the Delhi High Court that have protected content owners from piracy through infringing websites. Some of these orders include UTV Software Communication Ltd. & Ors. v. 1337x & Ors., 2019:DHC:2047; Universal City Studios LLC. & Ors. v. dotmovies.baby & Ors., 2023:DHC:5842; UTV Software Communications Ltd. & Ors. v. bmovies.is & Ors., CS(COMM) 768/2018, Order dated April 4, 2018; Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. https:hindilinks4u.to & Ors., 2022:DHC:3530; and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. https://tamilrockers.ws & Ors., 2022:DHC:4171.
In light of these facts and circumstances, the Plaintiffs have adverted to the guidelines enunciated in UTV Software Communication (supra) regarding the parameters to determine if websites are rogue websites. These guidelines are applicable to the facts in this case, as it is evident from the overall content available on the infringing websites that their primary purpose is to commit or facilitate copyright infringement. The flagrancy of the infringement and the facilitation thereof is apparent from the messages on some of these infringing websites. Furthermore, there has been silence and inaction by the infringing websites after legal notices were sent, except for Defendant Nos. 13 and 14. The infringing websites clearly make available indexes to the content to which the Plaintiffs claim copyright and are updating on a day-to-day basis, providing the latest content of the Plaintiffs.
Defendant Nos. 27 to 35 are various Internet Service Providers (ISPs) available domestically in India, who provide access to the internet and are in a position to ensure that access to these infringing websites is not available. Defendant No. 36 is the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), while Defendant No. 37 is the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), representing the Government and acting as the overall regulators of the internet environment in the country. They have been impleaded to ensure that the ISPs comply with any directions that may be passed by the Court. Defendant No. 38 has been arrayed as "Ashok Kumar," which is a generic name to include all those who, in the future, may be discovered as using the Plaintiffs' content.
The Plaintiffs, aggrieved by the unauthorized streaming, hosting, and distribution of their copyrighted cinematograph films/content by the Defendant Nos. 1-26 through their infringing websites, approached the Delhi High Court seeking permanent and dynamic injunctions to restrain such activities. The Plaintiffs filed the suit and the present application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to protect their exclusive rights in their copyrighted works and to prevent further infringement and monetary losses caused by the Defendants' infringing activities.
Issue:
Whether the Defendants' websites are rogue websites, and if so, whether they should be restrained from communicating to the public, hosting, storing, reproducing, streaming, broadcasting, or making available for viewing the Plaintiffs' copyrighted content?
Held by the Court:
1. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the Plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for the grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, as well as a dynamic injunction, to protect their copyrighted works. The Court observed that the balance of convenience lies in favor of the Plaintiffs, as irreparable loss would be caused if the injunction were not granted.
2. The Court restrained Defendant Nos. 1 to 26, including their owners, partners, proprietors, officers, servants, affiliates, employees, and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under them, from communicating to the public, hosting, storing, reproducing, streaming, broadcasting, re-broadcasting, causing to be seen or heard by public on payment of charge and/or making available for viewing, the Plaintiffs' content through their websites, including those listed in the order.
3. The Court directed the Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) of the infringing websites, upon being intimated by the Plaintiffs, to lock and suspend the domain names and provide the Plaintiffs with any details relating to the registrants of the domain names, including KYC, credit card, mode of payment, mobile number, etc.
4. The Court ordered the ISPs (Defendant Nos. 27 to 35) to block access to the infringing websites listed in the order within 48 hours of receipt of the order.
5. The Court directed the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) (Defendant Nos. 36 and 37) to take steps to ensure that the ISPs comply with the directions issued, through appropriate communications and notices sent to the ISPs, including other ISPs registered with them.
6. The Court granted a 'Dynamic+ injunction' to protect the Plaintiffs' copyrighted works, including future works, as soon as they are created, to ensure that no irreparable loss is caused to the owners of the copyrighted works. This was done in view of the imminent possibility of the works being uploaded on infringing websites or their newer versions immediately after creation.
7. The Court permitted the Plaintiffs to implead any mirror/redirect/alphanumeric variations of the websites identified in the suit as Defendant Nos. 1 to 26, including those websites which are associated with them, either based on the name, branding, identity, or even source of content, by filing an application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the event such websites merely provide new means of accessing the same primary infringing websites that have been injuncted.
8. The Court held that the Plaintiffs would be at liberty to file an appropriate application seeking protection for their copyrighted works, including future works, if the need arises. Upon filing such applications along with an affidavit containing sufficient supporting evidence seeking extension of the injunction to such websites, which would be listed before the Joint Registrar, the injunction shall become operational against the said websites and works. If there is any dispute regarding the ownership of copyright for any work, an application may be moved by the affected party before the Court to seek clarification.
Relevant Sections:
Section 2(f) of the Copyright Act, 1957 - definition of "cinematograph film"
Section 13(1) read with Sections 13(2) and (5) of the Copyright Act, 1957 - works in which copyright subsists
Section 14(d) read with Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 - exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a cinematograph film
______________________________________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and NLF Tax and Legal Advisory. The contents of this article are solely for informational purposes and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or a recommendation of the firm. Neither the author nor the firm and its affiliates accept any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing, and we reserve the legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission
Kommentarer