CS (COMM) 400/2019

Page 1 of 15

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 19.09.2022

Date of decision: 10.10.2022

+ CS (COMM) 400/2019 &I.A. 13800/2022

WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC

.....Plaintiff

Through:

Ms.Suhasini Raina, Ms.R. Ramya

& Ms.Mehr Sidhu, Advs.

Versus

HTTP://WWW2.SERIES9.IO& ORS. ...Defendants

Through:

Mr.Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with

Ms.Vidhi Jain, Advs. for D-26 &

D-27.

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/004172

CS (COMM) 400/2019

Page 2 of 15

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

distribution of motion pictures. The plaintiff has also received certain

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004172

CS (COMM) 400/2019

Page 3 of 15

reputed awards, such as the Academy Award for ‘Best Picture’ for the

motion picture ‘Argo’ in the year 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 (in short, ‘the Act’). The plaintiff claims that 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, transmission and streaming of the

Plaintiff’s original content by the defendant nos. 1 and 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 upon 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. 2 to 10 and the concerned

departments of the Government of India as the defendant nos. 11 and 12.

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/004172

CS (COMM) 400/2019

Page 4 of 15

6. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant nos. 1 and 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

cinematograph films by streaming or hosting 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.

6A.

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 cease-and-desist notice, the

rogue websites continue to infringe the copyright of the plaintiff in its

original content.

7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff presses only for prayers in

terms of paragraph nos. 52(i), (ii) and (iii), as noted hereinabove, of the

plaint. The other reliefs as made in the plaint are not pressed.

8. The learned counsel for