Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme 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