Star India Pvt. Ltd v. Watchonlinemoviehd.Online & 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."

¶13In the present Suit as well, vide order dated 27.02.2020, this Court had granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant nos. to (and such other domains/domain owners/website operators/entities which have been engaging in infringing the Plaintiff's exclusive rights), restraining them from making available, streaming or communicating the Film on their impugned websites herein or any other mirror websites.

¶14This Court had further directed the defendant no. 34 to block the domain names mentioned hereinbelow:- SL. NO. DOMAIN NAME

¶1watchonlinemovieshd.online

¶2hindi-torrent.xyz

¶3shof4u.com

¶4moviesktm.in

¶5filmi4wap.wapkiz. com

¶6thepiratebay0.org

¶7world4ufree.icu

¶8thepiratezbay.org thepiratetpb.xyz

¶9torrentdownload. siteunblocked.info

¶10thepiratebay 1 .info

¶11rdxh1.club

¶12torrentfunk.unblocked2.vip

¶13pirateproxy.uno

¶14ar.shofcima.tv

¶15piratemirror.live

¶16pirateiro.unblockit.red

¶17galaxy2gchufcb3z.onion.pet torrentgalaxy.daytorrents.com

¶18ofilmyzilla.net

¶19hdwebmovies.live

¶20fanhaolou.com

¶21moviesbaba.io

¶22dirtytorrents.com

¶23extratorrent.unblockit.red

¶24www3.filmymeet.co

¶25ettv.siteunblocked.club

¶26downpit.com

¶27ettv.siteunblock.pw

¶28bejotorrent.com

¶29downloadhub.blog

¶307starhd.rest

¶319xmovies.rocks

¶329xmovies.works

¶15This Court had further directed the defendant no. 34 to suspend the domain names of the defendants.

¶16This Court also directed the defendant nos.35 to 43 to block access to the said websites. Further, the defendant nos.44 and 45 were directed to issue a notification calling upon the ISPs and telecom service providers to block access to the listed Rogue Websites.

¶17The learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that pursuant to the order dated 27.02.2020, the defendant nos. 34 to 45 have complied with the said order of injunction.

¶18Thereafter, the defendant no. 34, being a pro forma defendant in the present suit, sought its deletion from the Memo of Parties as it had complied with the order of injunction of this Court dated 27.02.2020. This Court vide order dated 17.08.2021 directed that the name of the defendant no.34 be deleted from the Memo of Parties.

¶19Thereafter, on 17.08.2022, the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial), passed the following order:- "…Counsel for plaintiff submits that all the defendants have been duly served and affidavit to this effect has already been filed. Further, the subject matter has expired long back and, therefore, matter may be decreed in accordance with law. As prayed, matter be placed before the Hon'ble Court on 18.10.2022 for further directions."

¶20Thereafter on 18.10.2022, this Court noted that the defendants nos. 1 to 32 have chosen not to file any written statement or contest the suit. They were accordingly proceeded ex-parte in the present suit.

¶21Since the defendant nos. 1 to 32 have chosen not to enter appearance in the present suit despite service of notice, in my opinion, the suit can be heard and decided summarily. The defendant nos. 1 to 32 have no real prospect of defending the claim of infringement of the Plaintiff's Exclusive rights and have further chosen to not contest the said suit. The present matter is mainly concerned with enforcement of the injunction orders which are passed against the Rogue Websites who use the anonymity offered by the internet to engage in illegal acts of infringement. This is a fit case for passing a Summary Judgment invoking the provisions of Order XIII-A of the CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, read with Rule 27 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules 2022 (in short, "IPD Rules").

¶22In 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 to 32 are 'Rogue Websites', with their primary purpose being to commit and facilitate infringement of the Exclusive rights of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is therefore held entitled to a decree in terms of prayers made in paragraph no. 59 (i), (iii) and (iv) of the Plaint.

¶23Accordingly, I.A. 18851 of 2022 under Order XIII-A read with Section 151 of the CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, seeking a Summary Judgment is allowed. CS COMM 95/2020

¶24In view of the above, the suit is decreed in terms of prayers mentioned in paragraph no. 59 (i), (iii) and (iv) of the Plaint. As far as the defendant no. 34 is concerned, it has already complied with the prayer in terms of paragraph no. 59 (ii) of the Plaint and has subsequently been deleted from the Memo of Parties vide order dated

17.08.2021. The Plaintiff is also permitted to implead any mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites which provide access to the defendants nos. 1 to 32 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.

¶25The suit and the pending application is accordingly disposed of.

¶26Let a decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. NOVEMBER 30, 2022/DJ

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 17.11.2022 Date of decision: 30.11.2022 + CS(COMM) 95/2020 & I.A. 2778/2020 STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Vivek Ayyagiri, Adv. versus WATCHONLINEMOVIESHD.ONLINE & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA I.A. 18851/2022 (U/o XIII-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) 1. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit inter-alia praying for the following reliefs: "59. In light of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: i. Pass an order and decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants No. 1 to 32 (and such other websites / entities which are discovered during the course of the proceedings to have been engaging in infringing the Plaintiffs exclusive rights and Copyrights), 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, from in any manner communicating, hosting, streaming, and/or making available for viewing and downloading, without authorization, on their websites or other platforms, through the internet in any manner whatsoever, the Film and content related thereto, so as to infringe the Plaintiffs exclusive rights and Copyrights, ii. Pass an order and decree directing the Defendant No. 34, its directors, partners, proprietors, officers, affiliates, servants employees, and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and, on its behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under it, to suspend the domain name registration of domain names of Defendants No. 1 to 4 by Defendant No. 34 (GoDaddy) as already identified by the Plaintiff in the instant suit in Memo of Parties or such other domain names that may subsequently be notified by the Plaintiff to be of Rogue Websites which infringe its exclusive rights; iii. Pass an order and decree directing the Defendant Nos. 35 to 43, 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 various websites identified by the Plaintiff in the instant suit at S. No. 2 of the Documents or such other websites that may subsequently be notified by the Plaintiff to be infringing of its exclusive rights, iv. Pass an order and decree directing the Defendant Nos. 44 and 45 to issue a notification calling upon the various internet and telecom service providers registered under it to block access to the various websites identified by the Plaintiff in the instant suit at S. No. 2 of the Documents or such other websites that may subsequently be notified by the Plaintiff to be infringing of its exclusive rights. v. An order for damages of Rs. 2,00,01,000/- to be paid by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 36 and such other websites / entities which are discovered during the course of the proceedings to have been engaging in infringing the Plaintiffs exclusive rights, to the Plaintiff on account of their illegal and infringing activities and a decree for the said amount be passed in favour of the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff reserves its right to claim additional damages and amend the pleadings accordingly once the magnitude of the Defendants' illegal / infringing activities and the revenues earned by the Defendants' in pursuance to such illegal / infringing activities is ascertained upon discovery in the instant action); vi. An order for costs in the present proceedings in favour of the Plaintiff;" 2. The Plaintiff has impleaded the Domain Name Registrar as the defendant no. 34. The Plaintiff has also impleaded various Internet Service Providers (in short, "ISPs") as the defendant nos. 35 to 43, and the concerned departments of the Government of India, namely, the Department of Telecommunications (in short, "DoT")