CS(COMM) 366/2019

Page 1 of 16

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 26.08.2022

Date of decision: 08.09.2022

+

CS (COMM) 366/2019 & I.A 9850/2019, I.A. 9852/2019 & I.A.

10892/2022

WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC ..... Plaintiff

Through:

Ms.Suhasini Raina, Ms.R.Ramya

and Ms.Mehr Sidhu, Advs.

Versus

HTTPS:HINDILINKS4U.TO & ORS.

..... Defendants

Through:

None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

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

following reliefs:

2022:DHC:3530

CS(COMM) 366/2019

Page 2 of 16

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

distribution of motion pictures. The Plaintiff has also received certain

2022:DHC:3530

CS(COMM) 366/2019

Page 3 of 16

reputed awards, such as the Academy Award for “Best Motion 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 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,

broadcasting,

re-broadcasting,

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

Defendant Nos. 1, 51 and 52 (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. 2-10 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 making compliance with any directions of this Court granted in favor

of the Plaintiff.

2022:DHC:3530

CS(COMM) 366/2019

Page 4 of 16

6. The Plaintiff has alleged that the defendant nos. 1, 51 and 52 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 aliaby 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 counsel for the Plaintiff relies upon the judgment

passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of petitions dated