CS(COMM) 403/2019

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) 403/2019 & IA 13802/2022

WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. ..... Plaintiff

Through:

Ms.Suhasini Raina, Ms.R.Ramya,

Ms.Mehr Sidhu, Advs.

versus

HTTP://WWW.ONLINEWATCHMOVIES.COM.PK/ & 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:

2022:DHC:4173

CS(COMM) 403/2019

Page 2 of 15

2022:DHC:4173

CS(COMM) 403/2019

Page 3 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

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

motion picture ‘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 (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 14(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.

2022:DHC:4173

CS(COMM) 403/2019

Page 4 of 15

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.

6. 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

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.

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 cease-and-desist

notice, the rogue websites continue to infringe the copyright of the

plaintiff in its original content.

8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff presses only for prayers given

in paragraph no. 51(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 dated

10.04.2019 passed by this Court in a batch of suits, including UTV

Software Communication Ltd. & Ors. v. 1337X.to & Ors., 2019 SCC

OnLine Del 8002, which dealt with the determination of rogue websites.