O R D E R

% 10.08.2016 IA No. 48/2016 (seeking deletion of Defendant No. 2 from array of parties)

1. This is an application by Defendant No. 2 Google India Pvt. Ltd. („GIPL‟) seeking its deletion from the array of parties. The only reason why GIPL appears to have been made a party in the suit is that Defendant No. 1 YouTube LLC itself does not have an office in India.

2. Considering that Defendant No. 1 has participated in these proceedings, and is not disputing the jurisdiction of this Court, and with Defendant No. 1 having already complied with the interim injunction issued on 27th August 2015, the Court sees no reason why Defendant No. 2 should continue to be arrayed as a party to the suit.

3. The application is accordingly allowed and Defendant No. 2 is deleted from the array of parties.

IA No. 353/2016 (under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC)

4. In view of the above order in I. A. No. 48 of 2016, this application does not survive and is disposed of as such.

IA Nos. 17808/2015 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC) &

26085/2015 (under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC)

5. The interim injunction granted by this Court on 27th August 2015 in IA No. 17808 of 2015 filed by the Plaintiff Tata Sky Ltd. ('Tata Sky') restrained the Defendants (which included YouTube LLC Defendant No. 1) “from using the trade mark „TATA SKY‟ in any manner directly or indirectly in any of their websites including posts, messages, discussions, forums, blogs or any other form of electronic media, without written authorization of the plaintiff, and to remove any material whereby it is sought to prove any methodology or trick to hack into the system of the plaintiff or to access the plaintiffs services”. The Defendants were further directed to remove the video clips "how to watch HD channels free in TATA SKY Trick" or "Hack tata sky for free exclusive" from their websites.

6. Since then YouTube LLC has taken down from its websites the URLs of the offending video against which the Plaintiff‟s complaint was directed.

7. It is pointed out by Mr. Arvind Nigam, learned Senior Advocate appearing for YouTube LLC, that there was no question of YouTube LLC itself violating the trademark „Tata Sky‟ since it is not the author of any of those offensive videos which have been uploaded on its websites. He points out that in any event YouTube LLC has removed the offending URLs from its website. He affirms to the Court that those URLs will not hereafter be permitted to continue on the website of YouTube LLC. He also assures the Court that if there is any further complaint of a similar nature by the Plaintiff, YouTube LLC will not be found wanting in responding immediately to take down any such similar offensive material consistent with the interim injunction issued by the Court on 27th August 2015. In the circumstances, YouTube LLC is in IA No. 26085 of 2015 seeking variation of the order dated 27th August 2015 to vacate the injunction as far as YouTube LLC is concerned while allowing it to continue as a 'John Doe'

order qua unknown offenders.

8. Mr Nigam added that it was Tata Sky which led YouTube LLC to believe that Tata Sky owned the copyright over the encryption in the STBs, which it obviously did not, and YouTube LLC cannot be faulted for suggesting that a complaint for copyright violation ought to be filed by Tata Sky. He pointed out that Tata Sky in its complaint dated 1st July 2015 alleged circumvention of technological measures which was an offence under Section 65A of the Copyright Act, 1957. The suit was ultimately framed as one for a trademark violation and had Tata Sky not been unclear about the kind of violation that had taken place, YouTube LLC may have acted even more promptly than it did to take down the offending material from its website.

9. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Tata Sky pointed out that there was an unacceptable delay in YouTube LLC responding to Tata Sky's complaint to it about the offending video which virtually sought to teach the public how to ha