Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Asha Menon, J.
T.v. Today Network Limited - Appellant
Versus
News Laundry Media Private Limited & Ors. - Respondents
CS(Comm) 551/2021, I.As.14238/2021, 14296/2021, 14964/2021, 37/2022, 1055/2022 & 4827/2022
Decided On : 29-07-2022
The Delhi High Court, while dealing with a suit for permanent injunction against copyright infringement and commercial disparagement, held that the dispute was a 'commercial dispute' and the commercial court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The court also held that the use of excerpts from the plaintiff's programs by the defendants, with comments, constituted 'fair dealing' and was protected under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court further held that the defendants' comments on the plaintiff's programs were not defamatory or disparaging and were protected under the right to freedom of speech and expression. Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, operated prominent television channels and was part of the prestigious 'INDIA TODAY GROUP'. The plaintiff created and maintained highly credible and accurate, active and updated profiles, accounts and handles on social-media and content-sharing platforms. The defendants No. 1 to 9, by their various programmes on their social-media platforms and through their Digital News Platform, had tarnished the plaintiff's reputation. The plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction as also for damages.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the dispute was a 'commercial dispute' and the commercial court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The court also held that the use of excerpts from the plaintiff's programs by the defendants, with comments, constituted 'fair dealing' and was protected under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court further held that the defendants' comments on the plaintiff's programs were not defamatory or disparaging and were protected under the right to freedom of speech and expression.
Issues: Whether the suit relates to a 'commercial dispute'; Whether the defendants' use of excerpts from the plaintiff's programs constituted 'fair dealing'; Whether the defendants' comments on the plaintiff's programs were defamatory or disparaging.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dispute was a 'commercial dispute' and the commercial court had jurisdiction to try the suit, as it arose out of intellectual property rights relating to copyright. The court also held that the use of excerpts from the plaintiff's programs by the defendants, with comments, constituted 'fair dealing' and was protected under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, as it was for the purpose of criticism or review and did not amount to infringement of copyright. The court further held that the defendants' comments on the plaintiff's programs were not defamatory or disparaging and were protected under the right to freedom of speech and expression, as they were made in public interest and were not malicious or dishonest.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction.
JUDGMENT
I.A.14238/2021 (by the plaintiff u/S 151 CPC for filing additional documents)
1. The application has been moved by the plaintiff along with the suit seeking leave to file additional documents within 30 days, as the suit had been filed for urgent relief.
2. In the interest of justice, the application is allowed.
3. The application stands disposed of.
I.A.14296/2021 (by the plaintiff u/S 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 seeking exemption from pre-institution mediation)
4. The application has been moved by the plaintiff along with the suit seeking exemption from exhausting the remedy of pre-institution mediation.
5. Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, learned senior counsel for the defendants No. 1 to 9, had raised an objection that the suit is not a 'commercial suit'. If that be so, the application would be unnecessary. However, since the suit has been filed as a 'commercial suit' and in view of the fact that the urgent reliefs of injunction against infringement of copyright has been sought, the application is allowed and the plaintiff is exempted from exhausting the remedy of the pre-institution mediation.
6. The application stands disposed of.
I.A.14964/2021 (by the plaintiff u/O VII Rule 10 CPC to file additional documents) and I.A.37/2022 (by the plaintiff u/O VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file additional documents)
7. These applications have been filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to place on the record, the transcripts of the videos, in respect of which, the plaintiff has sought relief, which are allegedly containing infringing material and defamatory/derogatory material against the plaintiff.
8. The objection raised by the learned senior counsel for the defendants No. 1 to 9 was that neither provision was applicable. However, since the videos have been produced before the court, the transcripts would only assist the court, for which reason the plaintiff is allowed to place the same on the record. Accordingly, these transcripts are taken as part of the record, subject to any objection that the defendants may raise in respect of the correctness of the transcripts during trial, as such a comparison is not possible at this stage.
9. The application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
I.A.1055/2022 (by the plaintiff u/O XI Rule 1 CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 seeking leave to file additional documents)
10. The application has been moved by the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 seeking permission to place on record additional documents, namely, screenshots of the tweets/posts appearing on the websites of the defendant No. 11 i.e., www.facebook.com and www.instagram.com and the website of the defendant No. 12 i.e., www.twitter.com, as listed in the plaint, allegedly containing defamatory/infringing content.
11. Since these are only screenshots of details already listed in the plaint, in the interest of justice, as it would only assist the court in appreciating the contents as to whether they contain infringing/defamatory material, the application is allowed and these screenshots mentioned in para No. 9 of the present application are taken on record.
12. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 14237/2021 (by the plaintiff u/O XXXIX R-l & 2 CPC for interim injunction)
13. The application [I.A. 14237/2021] has been moved by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff along with the suit for mandatory and permanent injunction as also for damages.
BRIEF FACTS
14. The plaintiff is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at F-26, First Floor, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001 and operates prominent television channels, namely, 'AajTak', 'AajTak HD', 'India Today Television' and 'Good News TV' and is part of the prestigious 'INDIA TODAY GROUP'. Its business interests are in broadcasting, publishing, e-commerce, etc., through its c
The court found the plaintiff established a prima facie case of copyright infringement, while defendants claimed fair use and truth defenses for defamation, necessitating a trial to assess merits.
The main legal point established is that while the defense of justification requires evidence and should be determined at trial, the use of strong and offensive words in a defamatory context can impa....
Unauthorized exploitation of copyrighted content, previously licensed, does not qualify as fair dealing or de minimis.
Defamation claims must be substantiated with evidence; interim injunctions can be granted to restrain publication of statements deemed severely defamatory.
Interim injunctions must meet the triple test: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss; ex-parte orders are justified in defamation cases where urgent protection is needed.
The court ruled that the right to freedom of speech takes precedence over defamation claims unless a strong prima facie case is established, underscoring the necessity to balance fundamental rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
