CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court

Dynamic+ Injunctions Essential to Thwart Digital Piracy in IPL Broadcasting Rights: Delhi High Court in Viacom 18 vs. John Doe & Ors.

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment concerning the broadcast of the Indian Premier League (IPL), the Delhi High Court has underscored the critical need for 'Dynamic+' injunctions as a robust legal response to combat digital piracy. The ruling came in the case of Viacom 18 Media Private Limited vs. John Doe & Ors., highlighting the evolving challenges in the protection of copyright in the digital era.

The Court’s focus was on addressing the challenges posed by rogue websites streaming IPL events without authorization. The judgment centered on the concept of 'Dynamic+' injunctions, a legal tool evolving in response to digital piracy.

Viacom 18, owning exclusive media rights for IPL events, faced infringement issues from rogue websites broadcasting the IPL matches illegally. The Defendants included various unidentified websites, domain name registrars, internet service providers, and government departments such as the DoT and MeitY.

Justice Sanjeev Narula meticulously assessed the case, emphasizing the significance of IPL broadcasting rights. He noted, "Unauthorized dissemination, telecasting, or broadcasting of these events on various websites and digital platforms poses a significant threat to the Plaintiff’s revenue streams."

The Court recognized the recurring threat of rogue websites and the inadequacy of traditional legal injunctions against the dynamic nature of digital piracy. Justice Narula referred to the precedent of Universal City Studios LLC v. Dotmovies.baby1, underscoring the necessity for dynamic injunctions. He stated, "As innovation in technology continues, remedies to be granted also ought to be calibrated by Courts."

Decision:The High Court granted an interim 'Dynamic+' injunction against the defendants, ordering immediate blocking measures by ISPs, DoT, and MeitY. The Court allowed the Plaintiff to dynamically add and block new rogue websites found infringing during the IPL event.

Date of Decision: March 22, 2024.

Viacom 18 Media Private Limited vs. John Doe & Ors.

 

Latest Legal News