Piracy Needs To Be Dealt With Heavy Hand: Delhi HC

CAUSE TITLE: 
Star India Private Ltd Vs 7MOVIERULZ. TC & Ors

DATE OF ORDER: 
2 September 2022

JUDGE(S): 
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYTI SINGH

PARTIES: 
Plaintiff:  STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Defendants: 7MOVIERULZ.TC & ORS.

SUBJECT

In this case, the Delhi High Court highlighted the need to deal with piracy cases in a stringent manner. The case related to an application praying for he relief of permanent injunction damages for infringement of copyrights of the plaintiff in his film Brahmastra Part One: Shiva.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

Order 39 Rule 1

1. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted.—Where in any suit it is proved by

affidavit or otherwise—

(a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by

any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or

(b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to

defrauding his creditors,

(c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess, the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the

The plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit,

the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit] as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.

2. Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach.—(1) In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right.

(2) The Court may by order grant such injunction, on such terms as to the duration of the injunction, keeping an account, giving security, or otherwise, as the Court thinks fit.

BRIEF FACTS

• By application no. I.A. 14117/2022 filed by the plaintiff, the applicant sought an ex-parte ad interim injunction. The suit was filed for permanent injunction and damages for infringement of copyrights of the plaintiff in his film Brahmastra Part One: Shiva (hereinafter referred to as ‘the film’). The film is co-produced by Plaintiffs and Defendants 19 to 21 who have invested a huge sum of money in the production and promotion of the said film.
• Plaintiff made a case that being co-producers of the film, the plaintiff and defendants are co-authors of the film under Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and owners in terms of Section 17 of the act. Hence, the exclusive rights enumerated in Section 14 of the said act are vested in Plaintiffs and Defendants 19 to 21.
• Plaintiff further contended that hosting, streaming, reproduction, distribution and making available to the public and/or communicating the film to the public without the plaintiff’s authorization amounts to infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright.
• Present suit has been filed against the defendant websites which are engaged in communicating to the public, hosting, streaming, etc. the copyright-protected work and are vehicles of infringement, whose whole business model is designed to provide members of the public access to copyright contents, unauthorisedly.
• Plaintiff further contended that it is an industry practice to have a theatrical release of the film first and then make it available on different platforms. The theatrical release is the most important stage as the film’s commercial value depends on it.
• Plaintiff relied heavily on the judgment of theDelhi High Court in UTV Software Communication Ltd. and Others v. 1337X.To and Others in which it was held that rogue websites can be held liable for copyright infringement and are not entitled to protection under Section 52(1)(c).

ANALYSIS BY THE COURT

• The Court accepted the contentions of the plaintiffas most of them have been reiterated in many judgments.
• The court prima facie agreed with the plaintiff that if rogue websites communicate the film in any manner on any platform simultaneously with the theatrical release of the film or shortly thereafter, it will adversely affect the monetary interest of the plaintiff.

CONCLUSION

The court restrained defendants 1 to 18 from in any manner hosting, streaming, retransmitting, exhibiting, making available for viewing and downloading, providing access to and/or communicating to the public, displaying, uploading, modifying, publishing, updatingand/or sharing on their websites through the internet or any other platform, the film ‘Brahmastra Part One: Shiva’ and contents related thereto, so as to infringe the Plaintiff’s copyright therein and defendants 22 to 28 to suspend/block domain name registrations of defendants 1 to 18. 

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement