Directly contacting YouTube to block a channel post-judgment without court approval undermines legal principles of fair conduct in litigation.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 29.10.2025

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. On the ground that the videos uploaded by Respondent 11 on its YouTube channel under nine URLs2 infringed the appellant’s copyright, the appellant instituted CS (COMM) 251/20253, praying that the said videos be removed, apart from other prayers.

2. Inasmuch as the suit is presently pending before the learned Single Judge, it is not necessary for us to advert any further to the prayers in the suit.

3. With the suit, the appellant filed IA 7382/2025 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking interlocutory reliefs.

4. The suit was listed before the learned Single Judge of this Court on 21 March 2025, on which date summons in the suit and notice in IA 7382/2025 stand issued. The learned Single Judge recorded the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the respondents (as the defendants in the suit) and proceeded to pass further directions in the following terms :

“15. Mr. Chander Lall, senior advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant no.1 submits as under:-

i The defendant no.1 shall take down the nine videos from its YouTube channel, referred to in prayer clause 50 (d) of the application for interim injunction, in respect of which the plaintiff claims copyright.

ii The plaintiff’s videos were erroneously reproduced by some employee of the defendant no.1.

iii The defendant no.1 shall not use/reproduce the plaintiff’s videos in future as well.

16. The aforesaid statements are taken on record. The defendant no.1 shall be bound by the same.

17. Mr. Lall, also submits that the defendant no.1’s YouTube channel has been blocked by YouTube on account of the copyright strikes made by the plaintiff. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, the defendant no.1 may apply to YouTube for unblocking of its YouTube channel.

18. List before the Roster Bench on 29th April, 2025.”

5. It is not in dispute that the nine videos, forming subject matter of the order dated 21 March 2025, were taken down by the respondents and their YouTube channel unblocked.

6. Thereafter, however, the appellant approached YouTube (impleaded as Defendant 2 in the suit) directly, alleging that there were eight other URLs of the respondents, which also infringed the appellant’s copyright. All the eight URLs had admittedly been uploaded by the respondents prior to the passing of the order dated 21 March 2025. As such, it is clear that the uploading of the said URLs did not, in any manner, violate the interdiction contained in para 15(iii) of the order dated 21 March 2025.

7. We may also note that, before approaching YouTube directly qua the aforesaid eight allegedly infringing URLs, the appellant, despite being locked in litigation with the respondent in the suit, did not even deem it appropriate to approach this Court in the first instance, or move any application before this Court for taking down the said eight URLs.

8. YouTube, apparently following its policy to block a channel with respect to which more than three or more infringing URLs were pointed out, once again blocked the channel of the respondent.

9. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent mentioned the matter before the learned Single Judge on 14 October 2025. The learned Single Judge has noted the respondent’s discomfiture at the fact that the appellant even did not deem it appropriate to approach the learned Single Judge in the first instance before directly contacting YouTube and getting the channel blocked.

10. At this juncture, we may also take note of the submissions of Mr. C. M. Lall, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, that, in IA