Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc v. Https:Hindilinks4U.To & Ors

Order I Rule for impleadment of such websites, Plaintiff shall file an affidavit confirming that the newly impleaded website is mirror/redirect/alphanumeric website with sufficient supporting evidence. Such application shall be listed before the Joint Registrar, who on being satisfied with the material placed on record, shall issue directions to the ISPs to disable access in India to such mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites".

¶22In light of the aforesaid direction, the Plaintiff filed applications under Order I Rule 10 of CPC for the impleadment of the Defendant No. 51 and 52 in the present suit proceedings, being I.A. No. 18418/2019 and I.A. No. 12530/2021 respectively, which were allowed by this Court vide orders dated 24.12.2019 and 29.09.2021 respectively, and the ex-parte ad-interim order dated 24.07.2019 was thereby extended to the Defendant No. 51 and 52.

¶23Thereafter, on 06.09.2021, the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial), passed the following order in regard to Defendant No. 51:- "No written statement filed by defendant no.51 despite service. Consequent to it, no replication filed.

All of the contesting defendants against whom substantial relief has been sought by the plaintiff have been served, however they have not preferred to appear to contest this case or to file a written statement and affidavit of admission/denial of documents. Other defendants who were supposed to comply with interim directions have already complied with. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that there is no document for admission/denial of documents."

In the interest of justice, no adverse order passed, put up for further proceedings on

25.10.2021."

¶24On 09.05.2022, the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) passed the following order in regards to Defendant No. 52:- "No written statement filed by newly impleaded defendant no.52 despite service. All of the contesting defendants against whom substantial relief has been sought by' the plaintiff have been served, however they have not preferred to appear to contest this case or to file written statement and affidavit of admission/denial of documents. In this regard law shall take its own course. Learned counsel for plaintiff submits that there is no document for admission/denial of documents. Hence, pleadings stand complete. Other defendants who were supposed to comply with interim directions have already complied with. At joint request, let the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Court for further directions on

18.07.2022."

¶25Since the Defendant Nos. 1, 51 and 52 are not appearing despite notice, and have been proceeded ex-parte, in my opinion, the suit can be

heard and decided summarily. The Defendant Nos. 1, 51 and 52 have no real prospect of successfully defending the claim of copyright infringement and have further not chosen to contest the said claim. The present matter is mainly concerned with the enforcement of the injunction orders which are passed against the rogue websites who do not have any defense to the claim of copyright infringement but use the anonymity offered by the internet to engage in illegal activities, such as copyright infringement in the present case.

¶26On the basis of the evidence placed on record and keeping in mind the factors identified by this Court in UTV Software (supra), I find that there is sufficient evidence to hold that the Defendant no. 1, 51 and 52 are "rogue websites" and that this is a fit case for passing a Summary Judgment invoking the provisions of Order XIIIA of the CPC, as applicable to the commercial disputes.

¶27In UTV Software (supra), the Court also examined the issue of grant of dynamic injunctions and permitted subsequent impleadment of mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites which provide access to the rogue websites, by filing an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) alongwith an affidavit with supporting evidence, confirming that the proposed website is mirror/redirect/alphanumeric website of the injuncted defendant websites. At the request of the counsel for the Plaintiff, the same directions are liable to be made in this case also.

¶28Accordingly, I.A. No. 10892 of 2022 under Order XIIIA of the CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, seeking a summary judgment is allowed. All the pending applications are also disposed of.

¶29The suit is, therefore, decreed in terms of prayers (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Plaint. The Plaintiff is also permitted to implead any mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites which provide access to the Defendants Nos. 1, 51 and 52"s websites by filing an appropriate application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, supported by affidavits and evidence as directed in UTV Software (supra). Any website impleaded as a result of such application will be subject to the same decree.

¶30Let a decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. SEPTEMBER 8, 2022/ai

* 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: "51. In light of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: i. Issue an order and decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 (and such other mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites discovered to provide additional means of accessing the Defendant Website, and other domains/domain owners/website operators/entities which are discovered to have been engaging in infringing the Plaintiff's exclusive rights), its owners, partners, proprietors, officers, servants, employees, and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under it, 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 whatsoever, any cinematograph work/content/programme/ show in relation to which Plaintiff has copyright, ii. Issue an order and decree directing the Defendant Nos. 2-10, their directors, partners, proprietors, officers, affiliates, servants, employees, and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under it, to block access to the Defendant No. 1 website identified by the Plaintiff in the instant suit (and such other mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites discovered to provide additional means of accessing the Defendant Website, and other domains/domain owners/website operators/entities which are discovered to have been engaging in infringing the Plaintiff's exclusive rights) iii. Issue an order directing the Defendant Nos. 11 and 12, to issue a notification calling upon the various internet and telecom service providers registered under it to block access to the Defendant No. 1 websites identified by the Plaintiff in the instant suit (and such other mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites discovered to provide additional means of accessing the Defendant Website, and other domains/domain owners/website operators/entities which are discovered to have been engaging in infringing the Plaintiff's exclusive rights); iv. Issue an order directing the Domain Name Registrars of the Defendant Website identified by the Plaintiff in the Plaint to disclose the contact details and other details about the owner of the said websites, and other such relief as this 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 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