Delhi High Court - Orders
Star India Private Limited & Anr vs Mhdtv.World & Ors on 20 March, 2023
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C.Hari Shankar
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 567/2022
STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Sidharth Chopra, Ms.
Sneha Jain, Mr. Yatinder Garg, Mr. Akshay
Maloo and Mr. Rimjhim Tiwari, Advs.
Versus
MHDTV.WORLD & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Apoorv Kumar, Ms. Kirti
Dadheech, Advs. for UOI
Ms. Shweta Sahu, Adv. for D-12
Mr. Akshay Goel and Mr. Shivam Narang,
Advs. for D-13
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 20.03.2023 I.A. 5306/2023 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
I.A. 5305/2023 (Direction) in CS(COMM) 567/2022
3. This suit, instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants alleges that the defendants had, through various registered domain names, infringed the exclusive rights of the plaintiffs to telecast the Asia Cricket Cup Matches to be held between August and September 2022. By order dated 22nd August 2022, this Court granted ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from telecasting the said matches.
Signature Not Verified Orders were also issued to the Domain Name Registrars Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 567/2022 Page 1 of 5 By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:21.03.2023 17:32:14(DNRs), who had registered the domain names of the defendants, to disclose the details of the said registrants of the said domain names. Directions were also issued to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeITY) and the Department of Telecommunication (DoT) to block the said domain names.
4. All except five of the said DNRs, impleaded in this suit, complied with the orders passed by this Court. The five DNRs, who remained non-compliant were NameCheap Inc./Defendant No.13, Dynadot, LLC/Defendant No. 14, Tucows Inc./Defendant No. 16, Gransy s.r.o./Defendant No. 17 and Sarek Oy/Defendant No. 18. The Court was also informed that the non-compliant DNRs adopted a stand that they were bound only by orders which were passed by Courts in the US and, therefore, they were not bound to honor the order of injunction passed by this Court.
5. On 9th November 2022, the Court reiterated its finding that all DNRs impleaded as defendants in the suit were required to abide by orders passed by the competent Courts and governmental authorities, especially as they were offering their services or products in India and were bound by the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 ("the 2021 Rules"). Inter alia, it was noted that these Rules require the DNRs to appoint Grievance Officers to ensure compliance with orders passed by this Court which, apparently, had not been done.
6. Ultimately, in para 11 of the order dated 9th November 2022, this Court directed thus:
"11. In the backdrop of the above discussion, insofar as the above listed DNRs, which are not giving effect to the orders of Signature Not Verified this Court, i.e., NameCheap Inc./Defendant No.13, Dynadot, Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 567/2022 Page 2 of 5 By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:21.03.2023 17:32:14 LLC/Defendant No.14, Tucows Inc./Defendant No.16, Gransy s.r.o./Defendant No.17, and Sarek Oy/Defendant No.18, since DoT and MeITY are present before this Court, they are directed to immediately take action within one week against these DNRs for non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court. The authorities shall also look into the question as to whether these DNRs ought to be permitted to continue to offer their goods and services in India, if they are not giving effect to orders of Indian Courts and not complying with the applicable laws under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the 2021 Rules."
7. In compliance with the directions contained in the afore- extracted para 11 of the order dated 9th November 2022, two status reports have been filed by the MeITY, on 6th March 2023 and on 14th March 2023.
8. In the status report dated 6th March 2023, the MeITY has observed that it had no powers to take action against non-compliant DNRs but that, if the Court so ordered, infringing websites and email IDs could be blocked, the power in relation to which vested with the DoT through the Internet Service Providers (ISPs). It was also noted, in the said order, that the MeITY had already lodged a complaint about the non-compliant DNRs through the ICANN's contractual compliance mechanism.
9. A further status report dated 14th March 2023 of the MeITY, records that, on 10th March 2023, the MeITY directed the matter pertaining to the aforesaid non-compliant DNRs to be forwarded to the designated officers under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for access of Information by Public) Rules 2009 ("The IT Blocking Rules"), reiterating the direction to block access to the websites and URLs of the aforesaid five offending DNRs. Based on the said communication, the DoT issued order dated 10th March 2023 to the various ISPs to block access to the websites URLs of the afore-noted five offending DNRs.
Signature Not Verified In view thereof, it was Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 567/2022 Page 3 of 5 By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:21.03.2023 17:32:14submitted that the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 9th November 2022, concerning the aforesaid five non-compliant DNRs stood complied with.
10. The status report also notes, apropos the query from the Court as to whether the DNRs ought to be permitted to continue to offer their goods and services in India, that the maximum possible action which could be taken by the DoT/MeITY, which was for blocking access to the websites URLs of the said five DNRs, which had already been taken pursuant to the directions issued by this Court read with Rule 10 of the IT Blocking Rules.
11. In view thereof, it is clear that nothing further could possibly be done vis-à-vis the aforesaid five DNRs and that the directions issued in that regard by the order dated 22nd August 2022 read with the order dated 9th November 2022 stand complied with. The Court records accordingly.
12. Subsequently, Defendant 13-NameCheap Inc. has moved I.A. 5305/2023, submitting that it has complied with the directions contained in the orders 22nd August 2022 and 13th September 2022. In the circumstances, Defendant 13 has, by the application, prayed that the access to its website in India be unblocked.
13. Mr. Chopra has no objection to the unblocking of Defendant 13's website but has invited my attention to an email dated 30th January 2023 from Defendant 13 to the plaintiff (through Counsel) in which Defendant 13 reiterated its stand that it would not comply with the orders passed by this Court, but agreed to provide the information of the registrants subject to an affidavit, in terms of the said email, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 567/2022 Page 4 of 5 By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:21.03.2023 17:32:14 being submitted to the Court by the plaintiff.
14. Mr. Goel, learned Counsel for Defendant 13, however, states that the said email was written on erroneous advice tendered by the Counsel in the US and submits that, as Defendant 13 has complied with the orders passed by this Court, and has undertaken to ensure that such compliance continues in future, the domain name of Defendant 13 be unblocked.
15. Accordingly, the domain name of Defendant 13 shall be unblocked with immediate effect.
16. The application stands allowed accordingly.
CS(COMM) 567/2022
17. Renotify on 18th May 2023, as Mr. Chopra submits that he would be moving an application under Order XIII-A of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for summary judgment.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J MARCH 20, 2023 rb Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 567/2022 Page 5 of 5 By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:21.03.2023 17:32:14