IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. - Appellant
Versus
Https://tamilrockers. Ws - Respondent
CS(COMM) 369 of 2019 & IAs 9861 of 2019, 9863 of 2019, 3714 of 2022& 13801 of 2022
Decided On : 10-10-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for injunctive relief. (Para 1) |
| 2. plaintiff's stature and achievements. (Para 2) |
| 3. trademark of cinematograph films. (Para 3) |
| 4. allegations of copyright infringement. (Para 4) |
| 5. role of isps in infringement action. (Para 5) |
| 6. summary judgment considerations. (Para 10) |
| 7. factors determining rogue websites. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 8. summary judgment for rogue websites. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 9. final ruling on injunction and relief. (Para 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit inter-alia praying for the following reliefs:
"52. In light of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
i. Issue an order and decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant Nos. 1-16 (and such other mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites discovered to provide additional means of accessing the Defendant Websites, and other domains/domain owners/website operators/entities which are discovered to have been engaging in infringing the Plaintiff's exclusive rights), its owners, partners, proprietors, officers, servants, employees, and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under it, from, in any manner hosting, streaming, reproducing, distributing, making available to the public and/or communicating to the public, or facilitating the same, on their websites, through the internet in any manner whatsoever, any cinematograph work/content/programme/show in relation to which Plaintiff has copyright,
ii. Issue an order and decree directing the Defendant Nos. 16-25, their directors, partners, proprietors, officers, affiliates, servants, employees, and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under it, to block access to the Defendant Nos. 1-16 website identified by the Plaintiff in the instant suit (and such other mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites discovered to provide additional means of accessing the Defendant Website, and other domains/domain owners/website operators/entities which are discovered to have been engaging in infringing the Plaintiff's exclusive rights)
iii. Issue an order directing the Defendant Nos. 26and 27, to issue a notification calling upon the various internet and telecom service providers registered under it to block access to the Defendant Nos. 1-16 websites identified by the Plaintiff in the instant suit (and such other mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites discovered to provide additional means of accessing the Defendant Website, and other domains/domain owners/website operators/entities which are discovered to have been engaging in infringing the Plaintiff's exclusive rights);
iv. Issue an order directing the Domain Name Registrars of the Defendant Website identified by the Plaintiff in the Plaint to disclose the contact details and other details about the owner of the said websites, and other such relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper:"
2. The plaintiff claims itself to be a global entertainment company under the laws of the State of Delaware, the United States of America, and as being engaged in the business of creation, production and distribution of motion pictures. The plaintiff has also received certain reputed awards, such as the Academy Award for `Best Picture' for the motion picture `Argo' in the year 2012.
3. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the motion pictures produced by the plaintiff, being works of visual recording and which include sound recordings accompanying such visual recordings, qualify to be a `cinematograph film' under Section 2(f) of the COPYRIGHT ACT , 1957 (in short, `the Act'). The plaintiff claims that this Court has jurisdiction by virtue of Section 13(1) read with Sections 13(2) and 5 of the Act. Since the plaintiff's cinematograph films are released in India; the cinematograph films of the plaintiff would be entitled to all the rights and protections granted u
Indian Copyright Act, 1957 confers a bundle of exclusive rights on owner of a “work” and provides for remedies in case copyright is infringed.
Provisions of Order XIII-A of CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes.#12;
Summary judgment can be granted if the Defendant has no real prospect of succeeding in the matter, and the Court may explore the possibility of deciding the dispute by a summary judgment without a sp....
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....
The court established that unauthorized distribution of cinematograph films constitutes copyright infringement, allowing for dynamic injunctions to protect against evolving infringement tactics.
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.
The judgment establishes the legal principle that unauthorized distribution of copyrighted films is prohibited under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and perpetrators can be held liable for damages and c....
Courts can grant permanent injunctions against unauthorized streaming of copyrighted material, affirming producers' exclusive rights, especially when unauthorized use could cause financial harm.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.