Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Universal City Studios Llc & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Vegamovies.run & Ors. - Respondents
CS (Comm) 265 of 2022
Decided On : 27-04-2022
Injunction - Copyright Infringement - The Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 2(f), Section 51(a)(ii), Section 51(b), Section 51(a)(i) - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - I.A. 6387/2022, CS(COMM) 265/2022, I.A. 6388/2022, I.A. 6389/2022, I.A. 6390/2022 - Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against several defendant websites for hosting, streaming, reproducing, distributing, and communicating copyrighted content without authorization. Plaintiffs contended that the defendant websites were wilfully infringing copyright material and ignoring legal notices to cease infringement.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for the grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. The balance of convenience lay in favor of the Plaintiffs, and they were likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted.
Issues: Copyright infringement, grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction, compliance with legal provisions
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the Copyright Act, 1957, particularly Section 2(f), Section 51(a)(ii), Section 51(b), and Section 51(a)(i), as well as Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The Court also invoked Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to grant the injunction.
Final Decision: The Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant websites from hosting, streaming, reproducing, distributing, making available to the public, and/or communicating to the public any copyrighted content. The Court also directed compliance measures for blocking the defendant websites and issued notifications to internet and telecom service providers.
ORDER
I.A. 6388/2022(exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
I.A. 6390/2022(exemption from pre-suit mediation)
3. For the reasons stated in the application, the requirement of pre- institution mediation is dispensed with.
4. Application is allowed and disposed of.
I.A. 6389/2022(exemption from serving advance notice)
5. Since there is an urgency in the matter and the matter is being heard today, Plaintiffs are exempted from serving advance notice on Defendant No.22/Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and Defendant No.23/ Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY).
6. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and disposed of.
CS(COMM) 265/2022
7. Let plaint be registered as a suit.
8. Upon filing of process fee, issue summons to the Defendants, through all permissible modes, returnable on 03.08.2022. Summons shall state that the written statement shall be filed by the Defendants within 30 days from the receipt of summons. Along with the written statement, Defendants shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the Plaintiffs.
9. Replication be filed by the Plaintiffs within 15 days of the receipt of the written statement. Along with the replication, an affidavit of admission/denial of documents filed by the Defendants, shall be filed by the Plaintiffs.
10. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.
11. List before the Joint Registrar on 03.08.2022.
12. List before the Court on 31.08.2022.
I.A. 6387/2022(under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, by Plaintiffs)
13. Issue notice to the Defendants through all prescribed modes, returnable on 31.08.2022.
14. Present application has been preferred by the Plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction.
15. It is averred that Plaintiffs No. 1 to 6 are amongst the leading global entertainment companies engaged in the business of creation, production and distribution of motion pictures/cinematograph films, having exclusive rights to communicate their content. Plaintiffs' films being works of visual recording, which include sound recordings accompanying such visual recordings, qualify as a 'cinematograph film' under Section 2(f) of The Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Any hosting, streaming, reproducing, distributing, making available to the public, and/or communicating to the public of the Original Content, or facilitating the same, without authorisation of the Plaintiffs, by any means on any platform including internet and mobile and/or any other medium would be illegal and amount to violation of the Plaintiffs' copyright, protected under the Act.
16. Defendants No. 1 to 12 include vegamovies.run, with the additional domains vegamovies.app, vegamovies.bar, vegamovies.cx, vegamovies.info, vegamovies.ink, vegamovies.nl and vegamovies.onl (Defendant No. 1); 0123movie.stream with the additional domains 0123movies.ltd, 123movie.lc, 123movies.college, 123movies.futbol, 123movies.click, 123movies.gl, 123-movies.win, 123-movies.sx, 123movies44.com, 123movies0.gr, 123moviesgo.io, 123moviesme.online, 123moviess.se and 123movies.net (Defendant No. 2); allmovieshub.de with the additional domains allmovieshub.pro, allmovieshub.mobi, allmovieshub.org.in and allmovieshub.pw (Defendant No. 3); hdhub4u.mom with the additional domains hdhub4u.top, hdhub4u.li, hdhub4u.mx, and hdhub4u.one (Defendant No. 4); mkvcinemas.bz with the additional domain mkvcinemas.nz (Defendant No. 5); movierulzhd.bar with the additional domains 7movierulz.do, moviesrulz.net, 4movierulz1.com, 7moviesrulz.com, movierulz2free.com, movierulz4k.com and 4movierulz.live (Defendant No. 6); moviesverse.club with the additional domains, moviesverse.biz, moviesverse.mobi, moviesverse.me, moviesverse.com and 9moviesverse.in (Defendant No. 7); putl
The main legal point established in the judgment is the grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction based on a prima facie case of copyright infringement, with a focus on the balance of convenience an....
The court established that unauthorized distribution of cinematograph films constitutes copyright infringement, allowing for dynamic injunctions to protect against evolving infringement tactics.
The judgment establishes the need for dynamic injunctions to protect copyrighted works, including future works, and emphasizes the role of ISPs and government authorities in combating internet piracy....
The court may grant a 'Dynamic+' injunction to protect copyright holders against rogue websites by extending blocking orders beyond currently identified infringing content to future content and newly....
The court exercised discretion to allow separate trials despite the suit not meeting the requirements of joinder of plaintiffs, and relied on legal provisions to direct the defendants to block access....
Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction, ruling that balance of convenience favored plaintiffs in preventing irreparable harm from copyright infringements during legal proceedings.
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
