Delhi High Court: In a case wherein a suit was filed for permanent injunction and damages for the infringement of exclusive rights in the plaintiffs’ original content/work against the rogue websites which were indulged in online piracy by making original content available for download and also provided access to infringing and illegal content, a Single Judge Bench of Amit Bansal, J* restrained the defendants from hosting, streaming, reproducing and distributing any original copyrighted cinematographic work, content, programme and show in relation to which the plaintiffs had a copyright.
Background
In the present case, Plaintiffs 1 to 6, Universal City Studios LLC., Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Columbia Picture Industries Inc., Netflix Studios LLC., Paramount Pictures Corporation and Disney Enterprises Inc. were leading entertainment companies globally known for producing films such as Mulan, Lego Batman, Finding Nemo, Finding Dory, etc. and had exclusive rights to communicate their content to the public.
The plaintiffs contended that the defendants were online locations which enabled the use of defendants’ websites services, without any authorisation or license from the plaintiffs to view cinematograph films, motion pictures, television programs or other audio-visual content, on devices connected to the Internet by either streaming or downloading. Moreover, the defendants’ websites allowed copies of those cinematograph films to be downloaded onto the memory of their devices for watching later or enabling others to watch or further copy those cinematograph film and these websites identified other online locations by a process called “linking”, which enables the users to engage in the activities of streaming, downloading, and copying.
The plaintiffs investigated, monitored and gathered evidence in respect to the defendants’ websites and it was showed that the operators of the defendant websites were using “pirate branding” to signal to users that the defendant websites were merely new iterations of sites that had been blocked earlier. Therefore, the defendant websites being in the form of new iterations and that the new iterations invariably had the same functionality and purpose as the earlier blocked sites. It was further contended that despite the legal notice calling upon the concerned defendants to cease from engaging in their infringing activities, they continued to infringe the rights in the plaintiffs’ original content. Thus, the plaintiffs submitted that the defendants were liable for infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright works under Section 51(a)(ii), Section 51(b) and Section 51(a)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957 for making a copy of the original content, including storing of it in any medium by electronic or other means and communicating the original content to the public the hosting, streaming, reproducing, distributing, making available to the public, and/or communicating to the public of the original content for streaming and downloading, or facilitating the same, without authorization of the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs further submitted that majority of the defendants’ websites were anonymous in nature and the information provided in the public domain regarding the owners of the website was either incomplete, incorrect and/or protected behind a veil of secrecy. Moreover, these websites hide behind domain privacy services offered by various domain name Registrars, which enabled a website owner to hide behind a veil and not disclose any contact details publicly, to protect his privacy.
The Court relied on UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.to, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8002 and opined that a prima facie case was made out in favour of the plaintiffs and that irreparable harm would be caused to the plaintiffs if an interim injunction order was not passed.
Therefore, the Court restrained the defendants from, in any manner hosting, streaming, reproducing, distributing, making available to the public and/or communicating to the public, or facilitating the same, on their websites, through the internet in any manner, any cinematograph work, content, programme and show in relation to which the plaintiffs had a copyright. The Court further directed the Internet Service Providers to ensure compliance with this Order by blocking the websites of the defendants, their URLs, and their respective IP addresses.
The matter would next be listed on 29-8-2023.
[Universal City Studios LLC v. Fzmovies.net, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2182, decided on 11-4-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiffs: Saikrishna Rajagopal, Sidharth Chopra, Suhasini Raina, R. Ramya, Sanidhya Rao, Mehr Sidhu and Raghav Goyal, Advocates.
*Order by: Justice Amit Bansal
