Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court High Courts Cannot Routinely Entertain Contempt Petitions Beyond One Year: Madras High Court Declines Contempt Plea Filed After Four Years Courts Cannot Reject Suit by Weighing Evidence at Threshold: Delhi High Court Restores Discrimination Suit by Indian Staff Against Italian Embassy Improvised Testimonies and Dubious Recovery Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Sale with Repurchase Condition is Not a Mortgage: Bombay High Court Reverses Redemption Decree After 27-Year Delay Second Transfer Application on Same Grounds is Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies Legal Position under Section 24 CPC Custodial Interrogation Is Not Punitive — Arrest Cannot Be Used as a Tool to Humiliate in Corporate Offence Allegations: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Partnership Act | Eviction Suit by Unregistered Firm Maintainable if Based on Statutory Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court Reasonable Grounds Under Section 37 of NDPS Act Cannot Be Equated with Proof; They Must Reflect More Than Suspicion, But Less Than Conviction: J&K HC Apprehension to Life Is a Just Ground for Transfer When Roots Lie in History of Ideological Violence: Bombay High Court Transfers Defamation Suits Against Hamid Dabholkar, Nikhil Wagle From Goa to Maharashtra

Restrains for Warner Bros rogue torrent websites from illegally hosting-Delhi HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Recently, the Delhi High Court issued a permanent injunction in favour of the global entertainment company Warner Brothers, prohibiting "rogue" torrent websites from distributing, broadcasting, transmitting, or streaming its content. http://otorrents.com et al. v. Warner Brothers Entertainment

As the defendant websites were not represented, Justice Navi Chawla ruled that the case could be decided summarily, stating, "The defendants have no real chance of successfully defending the claim of copyright infringement and have chosen not to contest the said claim...

On the basis of the evidence submitted and bearing in mind the factors identified by this Court in UTV Software (supra), I find that there is sufficient evidence to hold that the defendant no. 1 and 51 websites are "rogue websites" and that this is an appropriate case for a summary judgement under Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, as applicable to commercial disputes."

Citing its decision in UTV Software Communication Ltd. & Ors. v. 1337X.to & Ors, which established the law on the granting of dynamic injunctions, the Court allowed Warner Bros. to implead any mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites that provide access to its content by filing the appropriate applications supported by affidavits and evidence.

"Any website that is impleaded as a result of this application will be subject to the same decree," stated the ruling.

Warner Bros. filed a lawsuit alleging that the defendant websites infringed upon its copyright by illegally streaming and hosting its content. The company stated that an independent investigator conducted an investigation to determine the scope of the infringing activity of the malicious websites.

It also informed the court that a cease-and-desist order had been served on the illicit websites, requesting that they cease their infringing activities. However, despite the legal notice, it was asserted that the malicious websites continue to violate the plaintiff's rights.

Warner Bros. sought the following relief from the court: - Issue order and decree of permanent injunction prohibiting Otorrents from hosting and streaming its content; - Issue an order to ISPs to block access to Otorrents' website; - Issue an order directing the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) and other government departments to issue a notification requesting various internet and telecom service providers registered under it to block access to Otorrents' website.

In its order, the Court noted that in 2019, it had ordered MEITY and internet service providers to block the domain name "Otorrents.com" and its URL https://otorrents.com. It was informed that ISPs had blocked access to the infringing websites in response to a notice issued by government agencies.

Attorneys Sidharth Chopra, Suhasini Raina, Disha Sharma, Anjali Agrawal, and Sandhya Rao represented Warner Bros., while MEITY's Department of Telecommunications was represented by Central Government Standing Counsel Nidhi Raman and Attorney Zubin Singh.

D.D: 1st June, 2022   

WARNERS BROS ENTERTAINMENT INC. VERSUS  HTTPS://OTORRENTS.COM & ORS.       

Latest Legal News