Copyright Crackdown: Delhi High Court Grants Dynamic+ Injunction Against 106 Piracy Websites

Copyright Crackdown: Delhi High Court Grants Dynamic+ Injunction Against 106 Piracy Websites

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has passed an order granting a dynamic+ injunction against 106 rogue websites (Defendant Nos. 1-106) for copyright infringement. The Plaintiffs, leading global entertainment companies, had filed the suit seeking permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, and other ancillary reliefs.

Procedural Background

The Plaintiffs filed the suit along with several applications, including:

1. Application for exemption from filing court fee: The Court granted the application, allowing the Plaintiffs to deposit the court fee certificate within one week.

2. Application for leave to file additional documents: The Court allowed the Plaintiffs to file additional documents within 30 days, subject to compliance with the Commercial Courts Act and Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

3. Application for exemption from filing documents in separate volumes: The Court exempted the Plaintiffs from filing documents in separate volumes, directing them to coordinate with the registry for filing separate volumes within four weeks.

Factual Background

The Plaintiffs are members of Motion Picture Association, Inc. or the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment and Copyright Overseas Promotion Association (‘COA’). They own exclusive rights to cinematograph films/shows protected under the Copyright Act, 1957. The Defendant Nos. 1-106 websites are alleged to be substantially engaged in online piracy by making available for download and otherwise providing access to infringing and illegal content.

Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiffs: Claimed that the Defendant Nos. 1-106 websites are infringing their exclusive rights by communicating to the public, hosting, uploading, streaming, reproducing, downloading, broadcasting, distributing, and/or making available to the public Plaintiffs’ Original Content without authorization.

Defendants: Only Defendant No. 42 replied, claiming that it merely provides a platform for registered providers to block access to the Defendant Nos. 1-106 websites.

Reasoning and Analysis

The bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the Defendant Nos. 1-106 websites are prima facie engaged in copyright infringement and that the Plaintiffs have made out a case for grant of interim relief. The Court held that a dynamic+ injunction is necessary to protect the Plaintiffs' copyrighted works from infringement.

Order

The Court ordered:

• Dynamic+ Injunction: The Defendant Nos. 1-106 websites and their associated domains, subdomains, and subdirectories are restrained from infringing the Plaintiffs' exclusive rights.
• Blocking of Websites: The Defendant Nos. 1-106 websites shall be blocked by the internet service providers and other authorities within 72 hours of being communicated with a copy of this order.
• Plaintiffs' Liberty: The Plaintiffs are permitted to implead any mirror/redirect/alphanumeric variations of the websites identified in the suit as Defendants.

Implications

The order highlights the Court's willingness to grant dynamic+ injunctions to protect copyrighted works in the digital age. The judgment emphasizes the need for a robust and effective mechanism to combat online piracy and protect the rights of copyright owners.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Sidharth Chopra, Ms. Suhasini Raina, Ms. Mehr Sidhu, Mr. Pushpit Ghost and Mr. Raghav Goyal, Advocates. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Mr. Yash Raj, Advocate for D-113 and D-115.