Lack Of Boundaries In Sale Deed Not Fatal To Title If Plot Number & Parent Title Are Sufficiently Identifiable: Calcutta High Court Terror Perception Of Underworld Justifies Delay In Invoking MCOCA; Purely Civil Disputes Can Metamorphose Into Criminal Offence: Bombay High Court Identical Wills Executed By Spouses On Same Day Not Necessarily 'Mutual Wills' Restricting Power Of Alienation: Delhi High Court Written Notice Not Mandatory For Revoking Permission Under Section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act: Gujarat High Court Wife Cannot Maintain Complaint Against Husband Under Senior Citizens Act; Not Intended For Spousal Disputes: Karnataka High Court Mere Presence At Scene Or Facilitation Without Intent To Aid Crime Does Not Amount To Abetment: Delhi High Court Offences Under IT Act Punishable With 3 Years Imprisonment Are Bailable Under Section 77B: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In KCA Data Theft Case Premature Release Can't Be Denied Citing Section 435 CrPC If Sentence Under Central Act Is Already Served: Madras High Court Suppression Of Higher Qualification To Secure Job Reserved For Lower Education Is Foundational Fraud, Sympathy Has No Role: Supreme Court MBBS Admissions | Candidate Using NIOS Marks To Meet 50% Eligibility Cannot Claim State Govt School Quota: Orissa High Court High Court Cannot Exercise Article 227 Power To Strike Off Plaint When Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Exists: Madras High Court Section 69 IEA | Onus On Propounder To Lead Secondary Evidence & Remove Suspicious Circumstances If Attesting Witnesses Are Dead: Telangana 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