SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 2138

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

Advocates appeared:
Ms.Suhasini Raina, Ms.R.Ramya and Ms.Mehr Sidhu, Advocates, for the Plaintiff.
Mr.Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Ms.Vidhi Jain, Advocate, for D-26 and D-27.

Headnote:(A) Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2(f), 13(1), 13(2), and 51 - Summary judgment granted in a suit seeking permanent injunction against rogue websites infringing copyright - Court considered evidentiary documents establishing unauthorized streaming of plaintiff's cinematographic works - Websites identified as rogue - Defendants failed to contest or deny allegations, justifying a summary decree. (Paras 15-29)

(B) Legal principles on rogue websites - Court outlined factors for determining if websites act as facilitators of copyright infringement, emphasizing the qualitative approach over quantitative. (Paras 16-17)

(C) Public interest and balance - Court highlighted the need to preserve the open Internet while curbing piracy, emphasizing the legitimacy of restrictions on illegal content sites. (Paras 80-84)

(D)

Findings of Court:
The plaintiff is a global entertainment entity engaged in motion pictures; defendant websites unlawfully streamed copyrighted content, warranting injunction. (Paras 3-13) (E)

Issues: The primary issues included whether the defendant websites are indeed rogue and whether the plaintiff had sufficient grounds for summary judgment. (Paras 6-12) (F)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the defendants' failure to contest the allegations and their classification as rogue justifies granting summary judgment and enjoining them from unlawful activities. (Paras 24-27) (G)

Result: Suit decreed in favor of the plaintiff, permanently enjoining the defendant websites and ordering the ISPs to block access. (Para 28)

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














































































































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top