Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc v. Https://Xmovies08.Ru & Ors

order, which adequately addresses over-blocking. A URL specific order need not affect the remainder of the website. However, right-holders claim that approaching the Court or the ISPs again and again is cumbersome, particularly in the case of websites promoting rampant piracy.

¶83This Court is of the view that to ask the plaintiffs to identify individual infringing URLs would not be proportionate or practicable as it would require the plaintiffs to expend considerable effort and cost in notifying long lists of URLs to ISPs on a daily basis. The position might have been different if defendants' websites had a substantial proportion of non-infringing content, but that is not the case.

¶84This Court is of the view that while passing a website blocking injunction order, it would have to also consider whether disabling access to the online location is in the public interest and a proportionate response in the circumstances and the impact on any person or class of persons likely to be affected by the grant of injunction. The Court order must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, but must not create barriers to legitimate trade. The measures must also be fair and not excessively costly (See: Loreal v. Ebay, [Case C 324/09]). xxxxxx

¶86Consequently, website blocking in the case of rogue websites, like the defendant-websites, strikes a balance between preserving the benefits of a free and open Internet and efforts to stop crimes such as digital piracy.

¶87This Court is also of the opinion that it has the power to order ISPs and the DoT as well as MEITY to take measures to stop current infringements as well as if justified by the circumstances prevent future ones."

¶17It is notable that the Plaintiff, in a similar batch of suits, including Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. Otorrents.Com &Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1738, wherein judgement was pronounced on 08.09.2022, had filed an application under Order XIII-A of the CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, wherein this Court relying on the decision in UTV Software (supra) has passed a Summary Judgment and decreed the suits in favor of the Plaintiff.

¶18In the present Suit as well, vide order dated 09.08.2019, this Court had granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the Defendant Nos. 1-4 (and such other domains/domain owners/website operators/entities which are discovered during the course of the proceedings to have been engaging in infringing the Plaintiff's exclusive rights), their 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, restraining them from, hosting, streaming, reproducing, distributing, making available to the public and/or communicating to the public, or facilitating the same, in any manner, on their websites, through the internet any cinematograph work/content/programme/ show in relation to which Plaintiff has copyright.

¶19This Court had further directed the Defendant Nos. 5 to 13 to block the domain names and its URLs as mentioned in the table below-Domain Name URL IP Addresses Defendant no.1 Xmovies08.ru https://xmovies08.ru/

104.27.208.30

104.27.209.30 Xmovies8.pl https://xmovies8.pl

104.31.112.42

104.31.113.42

145.249.105.15 Xmovies8.im https://xmovies8.im

104.31.16.3

104.31.17.3 Xmovies8.es https://xmovies8.es

104.31.18.30

104.31.19.30 Xmovies8.com https://xmovies8.com

104.31.18.30

104.31.19.30 Xmovies8.ru https://xmovies8.ru

145.249.105.15 Defendant No.2 Todaypk.ro https://todaypk.ro

104.24.116.36

104.24.117.36 Todaypk.stream https://todaypk.strea m

103.224.182.245 Todaypk.watch https://todaypk.watch

104.27.172.140

104.27.173.140 Defendant No.3 Extramovies.wiki http://extramovies.wi ki

104.27.168.35

104.27.169.35 Extramovies.host http://extramovies.ho st/

184.168.221.444

50.63.202.57 Extramovies.trade http://extramovies.tra de

104.18.40.74

104.18.41.74 Defendant No.4 Downloadhub.lol https://downloadhub.l ol

104.24.118.40

104.24.119.40 Downloadhub.net .in https://downloadhub. net.in

104.24.114.46

104.24.115.194 Downloadhub.biz https://downloadhub. biz/

104.18.32.194

104.18.33.194 Downloadhub.wi ki https://downloadhub. wiki/

104.27.150.156

104.27.151.156 Downloadhub.ind .in https://downloadhub.i nd.in

104.24.108.184

104.24.109.184 Downloadhub.ws https://donwloadhub. ws

104.18.56.217

104.18.57.217

¶20This Court further directed the Defendant Nos. 14 and 15 to suspend the above-mentioned domain name registration of the Defendant Nos. 1-4 and issue requisite notifications within 5 working days calling upon various ISPs and telecom service providers registered under them to block the aforementioned website identified by the Plaintiff.

¶21The learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that pursuant to the ex-parte ad interim order dated 09.08.2019, the Defendant No. 14 has issued the requisite notification. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff further states that the Defendant Nos. 5 to 13 have blocked the rogue websites i.e., Defendant No. 1-4's websites.

¶22This Court had also passed the following direction in its order dated 09.08.2019: "21. Further, as held by this court in UTV Software Communication Ltd. (supra), in order for this court to be freed from constant monitoring and adjudicating the issues of mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites it is directed that as and when Plaintiff file an application under Order I Rule 10 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".

¶23In light of the aforesaid direction, the Plaintiff filed subsequent applications under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleadment of such mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites with sufficient supporting evidence, which were allowed by this Court and the ex-parte ad interim order dated 09.08.2019 was thereby extended to the Impleaded Defendants: Sr. No. Impleaded Defendant Nos. Details of filing the Impleadment application Date of the order when the impleadment was allowed and disposed of 17 to 25 I.A. No. 18426/2019 Filed on:13.12.2019

24.12.2019 26 and 27 I.A. No. 8929/2020 Filed on:01.10.2020

08.10.2020 I.A. No. 7160/2021 Filed on:31.05.2021

12.07.2021 29 to 39 I.A. No. 12748/2021 Filed on:27.09.2021

04.10.2021 40 to 43 I.A. No. 17178/2021 Filed on:19.12.2021

17.01.2022 44 to 47 I.A. No.3657/2022 Filed on: 04.03.2022

11.03.2022

¶24Thereafter, on 25.08.2022, the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) was pleased to record that all of the Defendants, including Defendant Nos.1-4 and 17-47 against whom substantial relief had been sought by the Plaintiff have been served, however they have not preferred to appear to contest the case or to file Written Statement and Affidavit of Admission/Denial of documents, hence the pleadings stand complete.

¶25Since the Defendant Nos. 1-4, 17 to 47 are not appearing, despite notice, in my opinion, the suit can be heard and decided summarily. The Defendant Nos. 1-4 and 17-47 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 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. This is a fit case for passing a Summary Judgment invoking the provisions of Order XIII-A of CPC, as applicable to the commercial disputes, read with Rule 27 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022.

¶26In the present case, applying the test as laid down in UTV Software (supra), and considering the documents filed and the averments made in the plaint, which remained uncontroverted, it has to be held that the defendant no.1-4 and 17-47 are "Rogue Websites", with their primary purpose being to commit and facilitate infringement of the copyright of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is therefore, held entitled to a decree in terms of prayers made in paragraph no. 54(i), (ii) and (iii) of the plaint.

¶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) along with 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. 14915 of 2022 under Order XIII-A, as applicable to commercial disputes, seeking a Summary Judgment is allowed. All the pending applications are also disposed of.

¶29The suit is decreed in terms of prayers mentioned in paragraph no. 54(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. 1-4 and 17-47 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. OCTOBER 10, 2022/rv

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 21.09.2022 Date of decision: 10.10.2022 + CS (COMM) 422/2019 & IAs 10910/2019, 14915/2022 WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC .....Plaintiff Through: Ms.Suhasini Raina, Ms.R. Ramya & Ms.Mehr Sidhu, Advs. Versus HTTPS://XMOVIES08.RU & ORS ....Defendants Through: Mr.Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr.Kamaldeep, Adv. for D-14 & D-15. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA 1. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit inter-alia praying for the following reliefs: "54. 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 Nos. 1-4 (and such other mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites discovered to provide additional means of accessing the Defendant Websites, 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. 5-13, 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 Nos. 1- 4 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 Websites, 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. 14 and 15, to issue a notification calling upon the various internet and telecom service providers registered under it to block access to the Defendant Nos. 1-4 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 Websites, 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 Websites 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 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 (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 p