SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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