CS (COMM) No. 223 of 2016

Page 1 of 13

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

32.

+

CS (COMM) 223/2016

TATA SKY LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with

Mr.

Rishi

Agrawala,

Ms.

Niyati

Kohli,

Mr.Aavishkar Singhvi and Ms. Nadia Rafiq,

Advocates.

versus

YOUTUBE LLC & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Arvind Nigam, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Neel Mason, Mr. Ankit Relan and

Ms.Karnika Bansal, Advocates for Defendant

No.1.

Ms. Mamta R. Jha, Advocate for Defendant No.2.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

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

2016:DHC:5694

CS (COMM) No. 223 of 2016

Page 2 of 13

having already complied with the interim injunction issued on 27^th 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 27^th 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.

2016:DHC:5694

CS (COMM) No. 223 of 2016

Page 3 of 13

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 27^th August 2015. In the

circumstances, YouTube LLC is in IA No. 26085 of 2015 seeking variation

of the order dated 27^th 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 be