J U D G M E N T

The present suit has been laid seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from infringing, exploiting, uploading any of the plaintiff's audio-visual works more fully described in the annexure “A” to the plaint unless it is uploaded by the plaintiff or any person authorized by the plaintiff in writing. The plaintiff also seeks an injunction restraining the 4th defendant represented by John Doe/s @ Ashok Kumar/s (now deleted and replaced by Meta Platforms International) from infringing exploiting, uploading the plaintiff's audio- visual more fully described in Annexure “A” to the plaint except under written authority from the plaintiff.

2. According to the plaintiff, he is an eminent speaker and has millions of fans all over the world. He authored several books and also has given speeches in Tamil, on variety of subjects. He has addressed hundreds of public meetings and most of his speeches have been video graphed, the same were marketed under the banner “OM Audios” by the plaintiff. A list of such speeches made by the plaintiff is enclosed along with the plaint as Annexure “A”.

2.2. The plaintiff started a concern under the name and title of “Sukisivam Expressions”. The plaintiff's daughter is the sole proprietor of the same. He permitted her to publish the video recordings of his speeches and authorized her to publish the such video recording on “you tube” and all other social media. There has been a constant flow of good revenue through such publications in the “You tube”.

2.3 The plaintiff was surprised to find several recordings of his speeches were posted by several unknown persons, unauthorizedly, on You tube, Face Book and Whatsapp. The said unknown persons are mischievously publishing select portions of his speeches under defamatory captions with an ulterior motive to defame the plaintiff and create unwarranted animosity towards the plaintiff in the minds of a section of society. The said activity also resulted in diminishing the revenue to the plaintiff.

2.4. As a speaker, the plaintiff is the author of his speeches and as such he is the first owner of the copy right in all his speeches. As a first owner of the copy right in respect of his speeches, the plaintiff has got exclusive right to communicate the same through any means to the general public. No other person has got any right to communicate the same to the general public without authorization or licence from the plaintiff. Any reproduction of plaintiff's speech or portions thereof in any medium by any person without authority from plaintiff would constitute an infringement of copy right within the meaning of Section 51 of the copy rights Act.

2.5. It is also averred by the plaintiff that number of unknown and unidentifiable persons, are posting speeches of the plaintiff in You-tube, Face book, WhatsApp and other social media and those persons are untraceable. Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to approach this Court, seeking a restraint order against the respondents from posting such infringing materials in their platform. On these pleadings, the plaintiff laid the suit for the above said relief.

Averments found in the written statement of the first defendant:

3.1. The suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff failed to provide any documents to establish that he is the copy right holder or owner of the list of works enumerated in Annexure “A” to the plaint. The plaintiff failed to join the alleged uploaders/infringers of the infringing contents. Therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff failed to identify any specific 3rd party contents uploaded on the You-tube platform by the specific URL's.

3.2. The first defendant is only a platform provider or an intermediary in law and hence it is not a necessary or proper party to the suit. There is no cause of action to maintain the suit prayer against the 1st defendant. The plaint has been filed on the assumption that the first defendant is liab