The Delhi High Court in its judgment dated August 30, 2024 in Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. Moviesmod.bet, [CS(COMM) 738/2024], granted an ad-interim ex-parte dynamic injunction in the favor of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Disney Enterprises, Inc., Netflix US, LLC, SBS Co. Limited, SLL Joongagng Company Limited and CJ ENM Company Limited ("Plaintiffs") restraining rogue websites from streaming or hosting copyrighted works without a due license.
Brief Facts:
The Plaintiffs are leading global entertainment companies engaged in the business of creation, production, and distribution of motion pictures/ cinematograph films.
In the present instance, the Plaintiffs, who were the copyright holders having exclusive rights under Section 14(d) read with Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, initiated legal proceedings against Moviesmod.bet & 44 (forty-four) other domain owners ("Defendants") for the unauthorized use and distribution of their copyrighted content across various websites. The Plaintiffs approached the Delhi High Court seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendants from 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 to which the Plaintiffs had a copyright to and to block access to the websites of the Defendants as identified by the Plaintiffs.
Issue:
Whether an ad-interim ex-parte dynamic injunction must be granted in favour of the Plaintiffs to protect their copyrighted material?
Submissions by the Parties:
a. The Plaintiffs contended that the infringing domains/websites of the Defendants were carrying and disseminating content which consisted of the Plaintiffs' copyrighted works, without any license or authorization. The Defendants did not respond to the legal notices served upon them, demonstrating the intention of infringement.
b. Relying on judicial precedents in UTV Software Communication Limited v. 1337X.to, [CS(COMM) 724/2017)], the Plaintiffs argued that the Defendants' behaviour met all these parameters for a rogue website. These included, inter-alia:
- Whether the primary purpose of a website is to commit or facilitate copyright infringement;
- Whether there is silence or inaction by such websites even after take-down notices;
- Whether the online location makes available or contains directories, indexes or categories of the means to infringe, or facilitate an infringement of, copyright;
- Whether access to the online location has been disabled by orders from any Delhi High Court of another country or territory on the ground of or related to copyright infringement;
- The volume of traffic at or frequency of access to the website;
- The flagrancy of the infringement; and
- Any other matter as may be deemed relevant.
c. Thus, the Plaintiffs sought a dynamic injunction in light of the evolving nature of online copyright infringement. This would allow them to implead any mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric variations of the websites identified in the suit as the Defendants. The Plaintiffs argued that if this were not granted, they would suffer irreparable harm.
d. The suit proceeded ex-parte against the Defendants.
Judgment:
a. The Delhi High Court observed that it was evident from the vast volume of content available on its websites, the systematic, organised and intentional nature of the infringement, and the regularity and consistency with which content is updated/ uploaded on the websites, that the Defendants were in flagrant infringement of copyright possessed by the Plaintiffs.
b. The Delhi High Court deliberated upon the silence/ inaction on the part of the Defendants and how this behaviour of theirs demonstrated the hydra-headed nature of these rogue websites, which even if blocked, multiply and resurface as alphanumeric or mirror websites. It added that the mushrooming of the Defendants like in the present instance and that too by blatant and utter slavish activities with ulterior purpose, could not be allowed to continue.
c. The Delhi High Court then delved into precedents wherein dynamic injunctions were considered and granted. These included orders such as in Applause Entertainment Private Limited v. Meta Platforms Inc., [I.A. No. 10257 of 2023], Universal City Studios LLC. v. Dotmovies.baby, [2023:DHC:5842], wherein the courts have held that such dynamic injunctions were caused to ensure that no irreparable loss is caused to the authors and owners of copyrighted works, as there is an imminent possibility of works being uploaded on rogue websites or their newer versions immediately upon the publication of such copyrighted works.
Decision:
Based on the aforementioned rationale, the Delhi High Court held that the Plaintiffs were able to make out a prima-facie case with the balance of convenience for grant of an ad-interim ex-parte dynamic injunction against the Defendants. It noted that if the Defendants were not restrained by way of an ad-interim ex-parte injunction, there is a likelihood of the Plaintiffs suffering irreparable harm, loss, injury and prejudice which cannot be compensated for in terms of money. Thus, the Court passed an ex-parte ad-interim dynamic injunction and restrained the Defendants' rogue websites from streaming or hosting the copyrighted works of the Plaintiffs. It further ordered that access to the infringing websites must be blocked by internet service providers.
The Delhi High Court's decision in the present case reflects a proactive approach to copyright enforcement, recognizing the need for swift and continuous action to prevent irreparable harm to rights holders.
Please find attached a copy of the judgement.
This update has been contributed by Adity Chaudhury (Partner) and Mahek Shivnani (Associate).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
