Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Universal City Studios Llc. & Ors vs Mixdrop.Co & Ors on 23 September, 2022

Author: Navin Chawla

Bench: Navin Chawla

                    $~25
                    *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                    +    CS(COMM) 663/2022
                         UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC. & ORS.        ..... Plaintiffs
                                       Through: Mr.Saikrishna Rajagopal,
                                                Ms.Suhasini Raina, Ms.Ramya
                                                Ramkumari, Ms.Anjali Aggarwal,
                                                Mr.Sanidhya Rao, Ms.Mehr Sidhu,
                                                Advs.

                                                versus

                             MIXDROP.CO & ORS.                                   ..... Defendants
                                          Through:            Nemo.

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
                                             ORDER

                    %                        23.09.2022
                    I.A. 15657/2022(Exemption)
                    1.    Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
                    I.A. 15658/2022

2. This is an application filed under Section 80 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking exemption from issuing notice to the defendant nos.23 and 24.

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

4. This application has been filed seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

5. Having perused the contents of the application, the same is allowed.

CS(COMM) 663/2022

6. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

7. Issue summons to the defendants, to be served through all permitted modes, including electronically, returnable on 18th January, 2023, before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial).

8. The summons to the defendant(s) shall indicate that the written statement(s) to the plaint shall be positively filed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of summons. Along with the written statement(s), the defendant(s) shall also file the affidavit(s) of admission/denial of the documents of the plaintiffs, without which the written statement(s) shall not be taken on record.

9. Liberty is given to the plaintiffs to file the replication(s) within a period of 15 days of the receipt of the written statement(s). Along with the replication(s), if any, filed by the plaintiffs, the affidavit(s) of admission/denial of documents of the defendant(s) be filed by the plaintiffs, without which the replication(s) shall not be taken on record. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.

10. List for completion of pleadings and further proceedings before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 18th January, 2023.

11. Issue notice.

12. On the plaintiffs taking steps, let notice be served on the defendants through all permissible modes, including electronically, returnable on 13th October, 2022.

13. Let reply(ies) to the application be filed by the defendants within a period of four weeks of receipt of the notice. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

14. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are amongst the leading global entertainment companies engaged in the business of creation, production and distribution of motion pictures/cinematograph films. They have exclusive rights in works of visual recording, including the sound recordings accompanying such visual recordings, which qualify as a 'cinematograph film' under Section 2(f) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (in short, the 'Act'). They are the author/producer and/or the first owner and/or owners of the copyright vested in the said cinematograph films.

15. It is alleged that the defendant nos.1 to 4 are cyber-lockers that offer 'online storage and a sophisticated uploading and downloading/streaming platform', especially for the dissemination of unauthorized copies of copyright content such as cinematograph films, that is, motion pictures, television programs or other audio-visual content, on devices connected to the Internet to and from its servers.

16. The defendant no.5 provides a server facility for the storage and hosting of the files uploaded by various users of the facilities of the defendant nos. 1 to 4/cyber-locker websites. .

17. It is asserted that the defendant nos.6 to 13 provide incoming traffic to the defendant nos.1 to 5/cyber-locker websites . They are specifically designed to enable the streaming of the pirated content by the users, making it easily accessible for streaming and downloading. It is further asserted that an overwhelming majority of the traffic to the defendant nos. 1 to 4/cyber-

locker websites comes from the referral sites, as it promotes and provides access to the pirated content.

18. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has taken me through various documents to show that the defendant nos.6 to 13/referral sites' primary objective is to provide pirated copies of the cinematograph films in which the copyright of the plaintiff vests.

19. Having considered the contents of the plaint, the documents filed therewith as also having heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs have been able to make out a good prima facie case in its favour for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant nos.6 to 13.

20. As far as the defendant nos.1 to 5 are concerned, in my opinion, an opportunity of hearing may be granted to them before passing such an order, as they are stated to be in the business of providing services of cyberlocker.

21. As far as the defendant nos.6 to 13 are concerned, in case an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, as is prayed for, is not granted in favour of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are likely to suffer a grave irreparable injury. Equally, the balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant nos. 6 to 13.

22. Accordingly, at this stage, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in terms of the prayer made in paragraph (iii) of the application is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant nos.6 to 13. The defendant nos. 1 to 5/ cyber-locker websites, and 14 to 22, who are stated to be the Internet Service Providers, are directed to block the access to the defendant nos. 6 to 13/referral sites identified by the plaintiffs in the instant suit and/or any such other mirror/redirect/alphanumeric website which appears to be associated Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:26.09.2022 03:33:09 with any of the defendant nos. 6 to 13/referral sites based on its name, branding or the identity of its operator, or discovered to provide additional means of accessing, the referral sites , and other domains/domain along with their sub-domains and sub-directories, owners/website operators/entities which are discovered to have been engaging in infringing the plaintiffs' exclusive rights by virtue of being the author/producer/first owner of the copyright vested in the cinematograph film.

23. The defendant nos.23 and 24 are directed to issue necessary notifications in this regard.

24. As far as the defendant nos.1 to 5 are concerned, the prayers made against them shall be considered upon the service of notice to them.

25. Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, be made within a period of two days today.

26. Copy of the order be given dasti under signatures of the Court Master to learned counsel for the plaintiff.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2022 RN Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:26.09.2022 03:33:09