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 Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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