Delhi Commercial Court Shields Digital Creator’s Rights: Ex Parte Injunction Against YouTube Shorts Reproducing Karl Rock’s Content
Delhi Commercial Court Shields Digital Creator’s Rights: Ex Parte Injunction Against YouTube Shorts Reproducing Karl Rock’s Content
Introduction
A Delhi Commercial Court presided over by District Judge Vinod Yadav granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Karl Edward Rice, popularly known as Karl Rock, in a copyright infringement and passing off suit against UK-based YouTuber Adam El-Megrisi, who operates the channel “VidBrew.” The Court restrained the defendant from reproducing, uploading, sharing, distributing, or monetising the plaintiff’s copyrighted content and directed Google LLC and its India liaison office to remove the infringing material from YouTube within 48 hours.
Factual Background
Karl Edward Rice, a blogger and travel vlogger widely known as Karl Rock, is based in India and produces travel-related and scam-exposure content on YouTube. According to the plaint, he has created 829 original videos on the platform and has amassed approximately 31 lakh subscribers and over 118 crore views.
On or about May 8, 2025, Rice discovered that Adam El-Megrisi, a UK-based YouTuber running the channel “VidBrew,” had uploaded several YouTube “Shorts” that allegedly reproduced substantial portions of his original vlogs. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had repackaged segments of his travel and investigative videos into short-form content without any transformation, thereby diverting traffic and monetising the content.
The plaintiff placed detailed comparative charts on record identifying corresponding timestamps in the original videos and the allegedly infringing Shorts to demonstrate substantial reproduction.
Procedural Background
Rice instituted a commercial suit seeking reliefs for copyright infringement and passing off. He relied upon takedown notices issued in May 2025, subsequent reinstatement of certain videos on May 30, 2025, and correspondence from January 2026 reflecting the continued availability of at least one allegedly infringing Short. Upon hearing the matter, the Court considered the material placed on record and proceeded to decide the application for interim relief ex parte.
Issues
1. Whether the defendant’s YouTube Shorts constituted prima facie infringement of the plaintiff’s copyrighted works.
2. Whether the defendant’s actions amounted to passing off.
3. Whether the plaintiff satisfied the requirements for grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction, namely prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
Contentions of the Parties
The plaintiff contended that the defendant had reproduced substantial portions of his original YouTube videos without authorisation and without any transformative element. It was argued that the infringing Shorts were designed to capitalise on the plaintiff’s goodwill, divert viewership, and generate revenue through monetisation. The plaintiff emphasised the scale of his online presence, including his substantial subscriber base and cumulative views, to demonstrate goodwill and reputation. He further relied upon comparative charts, prior takedown notices, and continued availability of infringing content despite notice, to establish deliberate infringement and the likelihood of ongoing harm.
Since the injunction was granted ex parte, no submissions on merits from the defendant were recorded at this stage.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed that the plaintiff had placed sufficient material on record to establish a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. The comparative charts showing corresponding timestamps between the original vlogs and the impugned Shorts indicated substantial reproduction of copyrighted material.
The Court held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff, particularly considering his established reputation, subscriber base, and the commercial value of his content. It was noted that the continued availability and monetisation of the allegedly infringing content could cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s goodwill.
The Court stated that, “In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that a prima facie case of infringement of copyrighted works and passing off is made out in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant No.1 and even balance of convenience is also lying in his favour. It can also be foreseen that irreparable loss in term of goodwill would be caused to the plaintiff if no interim injunction is passed in his favour.” On this basis, the Court found it appropriate to grant interim protection.
Decision
The Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Adam El-Megrisi from reproducing, uploading, sharing, distributing, or monetising the plaintiff’s copyrighted content. It further directed Google LLC and its India liaison office, as operators of YouTube, to take down, remove, or disable the identified infringing content and URLs within 48 hours of receipt of the order and restrained reinstatement of such content until further orders.
In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Arvind Gopal, Advocate.
