Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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