Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (1.84 seconds)
Documents citing My Space Inc. vs Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. on 23 December, 2016

Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd vs Modicare Ltd & Ors on 31 January, 2020

124. During the course of arguments before this Court, the Respondents/Plaintiffs were not at all clear as to whether, according to them, Amazon was in fact an intermediary or not. In any event, the alternative arguments, claiming that Amazon is not an intermediary, appear to be riddled with inconsistencies. If, in fact, Amazon is not an intermediary, the question of Amazon having to comply with Section 79 (2) of the IT Act would not arise at all. Clearly, the Respondents seem to be unsure as to what their stand ought to be. As a result, the burden of proof has shifted unfairly onto the Defendants to show that they have complied with the requirements of Section 79 of the IT Act, when in fact the Plaintiffs have to first show that there had been a violation of any of their rights due to the Defendants' activities before the ―affirmative defence‖ of Section 79 could be sought to be invoked. Therefore, Section 79 of the IT Act has been, contrary to the judgment in Myspace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (supra), sought to be enforced by the Plaintiffs positively, rather than be deployed as ―affirmative defence.‖
Delhi High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 15 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Mr. Mahboob Alam vs Flipkart Internet Private Limited And ... on 28 January, 2026

143. During the course of arguments before this Court, the Respondents/Plaintiffs were not at all clear as to whether, according to them, Amazon was in fact an intermediary or not. In any event, the alternative arguments, claiming that Amazon is not an intermediary, appear to be riddled with inconsistencies. If, in fact, Amazon is not an intermediary, the question of Amazon having to comply with Section 79 (2) of the IT Act would not arise at all. Clearly, the Respondents seem to be unsure as to what their stand ought to be. As a result, the burden of proof has shifted unfairly onto the Defendants to show that they have complied with the requirements of Section 79 of the IT Act, when in fact the Plaintiffs have to first show that there had been a violation of any of their rights due to the Defendants' activities before the "affirmative defence" of Section 79 could be sought to be invoked. Therefore, Section 79 of the IT Act has been, contrary to the judgment in Myspace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (supra), sought to be enforced by the Plaintiffs positively, rather than be deployed as "affirmative defence."
Delhi District Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Utv Software Communication Ltd. And Ors vs 1337X.To And Ors on 10 April, 2019

78. The proportionality principle requires that a ‗fair balance' be struck between competing fundamental rights, i.e., between the right to intellectual property on the one hand, and the right to trade and freedom of expression on the other. A Division Bench of this Court in Myspace Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (supra) has observed as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 4 - Manmohan - Full Document

Mrs X vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 April, 2023

55. One of the concerns that arises when we consider the right to privacy of an individual under Article 21 is its impact on the right to freedom of expression and speech under Article 19(1)(a) which is an argument that has been posed by all parties in the instant matter. This issue requires an interpretation of the phrase "such content" in Rule 3(2)(b) and whether the same means a specific instance of identified NCII, as has been contended by the intermediaries, or all such content of identical nature, as submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae. This Court is of the opinion that construing the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR W.P.(CRL) 1505/2021 Page 79 of 88 Signing Date:26.04.2023 17:19:50 Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2806 phrase "such content" as "all content" is necessary to reduce the burden on the user/victim, however, "all content", access to which is to be disabled, must pertain to NCII abuse that has already been reported. Further, it is pertinent to note that unlike copyright infringement [as was the issue in MySpace Inc. v. Supercassettes Industries Ltd. (supra)], defamation, etc., NCII content conveys a higher degree of harm in society.
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document

Christian Louboutin Sas vs Nakul Bajaj & Ors on 2 November, 2018

"5. This Court has considered the submissions. The observations made by the learned Single-though ostensibly in the course of a discussion on the CS (COMM) 344/2018 Page 37 of 59 application for a temporary injunction, virtually foreclosed the plaintiffs' right to prove if and how the knowledge threshold required by virtue of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, has been met with. Whilst the defendant eBay has a point in highlighting the distinction between the nature and bundle of rights that a copyright proprietor possesses as opposed to a design registrant and also the nature of web portal involved in MySpace (supra) and the present case, at the same time, the complete preclusion of the plaintiffs' rights to prove that eBay's conduct betrayed its knowledge of infringement should not in our opinion be foreclosed.
Delhi High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 16 - P M Singh - Full Document

Neetu Singh vs Telegram Fz Llc on 30 August, 2022

(vi) As held in Myspace (supra), the intermediary is to be granted safe harbour, so long as it complies with the requirements of law. In the present case, the infringement has to be nipped in the bud, without which Courts would have to continue to repeatedly pass injunction orders against mushrooming channels containing infringing content. The Court cannot perpetually supervise such infringements and, thus, the origin and source of the infringing material has to be traced and such devices or persons involved in the infringement CS (COMM) 282/2020 Page 40 of 51 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:31.08.2022 12:12:31 ought to face consequences in accordance with law, including being held liable for damages. That would not be possible if the source of such infringing copies, i.e., the details of the infringing channels are not disclosed. Pertinently, such production of details of infringing devices or persons or other sources, is not a comment on Telegram's liability and does not derogate from safe harbour provisions. In fact, it is aligned with the view of Telegram's claimed role as an intermediary, which claims to act as a conduit of information.
Delhi High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 Next