CS(COMM) 515/2019

Page 1 of 37

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 26.08.2022

Date of decision: 08.09.2022

+

CS (COMM) 515/2019 & I.A 12927/2019, I.A. 12929/2019 &

I.A. 11119/2022

WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC

.....Plaintiff

Through:

Ms.Suhasini Raina, Ms.R.Ramya

and Ms.Mehr Sidhu, Advs.

Versus

RUTRACKER.ORG & ORS.

.... Defendants

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

1. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit inter-alia praying for the

following reliefs:

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003534

CS(COMM) 515/2019

Page 2 of 37

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

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003534

CS(COMM) 515/2019

Page 3 of 37

distribution of motion pictures. The Plaintiff has also received certain

reputed awards, such as the Academy Award for “Best Picture” for

“Argo” in 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 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The Plaintiff claims 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 under the provisions of the Act.

4. The claim of the Plaintiff is premised on the allegation of illegal

and

unauthorized

distribution,

broadcasting,

re-broadcasting,

transmission and streaming of the Plaintiff‟s original content by the

Defendant Nos. 1 to 19 and 32 to 51 (hereinafter referred to as the “rogue

websites”). It is the case of the Plaintiff that as a result of the

unauthorized transmission of their content, the rogue websites infringe

the copyright of the Plaintiff in the original works produced by it, which

have been granted protection under the provisions of the Act.

5. The Plaintiff has impleaded various Internet Service Providers (in

short, “ISPs”) as the Defendant Nos. 20 to 28 and the concerned

departments of the Government of India as the Defendant Nos. 29 and

30. The ISPs and the concerned departments have been impleaded for the

limited relief of compliance with any directions of this Court granted in

favour of the Plaintiff.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003534

CS(COMM) 515/2019

Page 4 of 37

6. The Plaintiff has alleged that the Defendant Nos.1 to 19 and32 to

51 are the rogue websites. The Plaintiff, vide an investigation conducted

by an independent investigator, learnt of the extent of the infringing

activity of the rogue websites, in as much as the rogue websites have

infringed the Plaintiff‟s copyright under the provisions of the Act in the

original content by unauthorized distribution, broadcasting, re-

broadcasting, transmission and streaming and/or by facilitating the use of

the rogue websites, inter alia by downloading and streaming the

Plaintiff‟s original cinematograph films in which copyright vests.

7. It is also the case of the Plaintiff that a cease-and-desist notice was

served on the rogue websites calling upon them to cease from engaging

in their infringing activities. Despite the legal notice, the rogue websites

continue to infringe the rights of the Plaintiff in its original content.

8. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff presses only for prayers (i),

(ii) and (iii), as noted hereinabove, of the plaint. The other reliefs as made

in the plaint are not pressed.

9. The learned couns