Associated Broadcasting Company Limited vs Google Llc & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Case type
- Civil Suit Commercial
- Decided on
- 28-02-2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 28/02/2026
+ CS(COMM) 9/2024 & I.A. 260/2024
ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY
LIMITED .....Plaintiff
versus
GOOGLE LLC & ORS. .....Defendants
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Plaintiff : Mr. Harsh Kaushik, Mr. Shwetank
Tripathi, Mr. Deepank Singhal, Ms.
Devangini & Mr. Harsh Prakash,
Advocates.
For the Defendants : Ms. Aishwarya Kane, Advocate for
Defendant No. 1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
I.A. 21020/2025
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
1. The Plaintiff has instituted the present Suit seeking, inter alia,
injunction against Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 restraining them from issuing any
groundless threat of copyright infringement and declaration that the acts of
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 1 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
Plaintiff as elucidated in the Plaint do not amount to copyright infringement
of the works alleged to be owned by Defendant Nos. 2 to 5.
2. In the present Suit, Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 have not filed a written
statement and / or affidavit of admission or denial of documents filed by the
Plaintiff. In this background, the Plaintiff has filed the present Application
under Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“ CPC ”) as
amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, (“ CC Act ”) read with Rule
27 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules,
2022 read with Chapter XA Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side)
Rules, 2018 seeking Summary Judgment against Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 in
respect of Prayer Paragraph Nos. 47 (i) and (ii) of the Plaint.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
3. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff made the following submissions:
3.1. The Plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act,
1956, and is inter alia engaged in the business of media and
broadcasting services, news dissemination and owns and operates
several television channels and digital platforms across the country
in the name and style of ‘TV9’ along with the television network
namely ‘TV9 Network’.
3.2. In addition to the traditional news broadcasting, the Plaintiff also
provides digital news services through its websites viz .
tv9hindi.com; tv9telugu.com; tv9bangla.com; tv9gujarati.com;
tv9marathi.com, etc. The Plaintiff has also created YouTube
Channels such as TV9Telugulive on 15.12.2011 and
TV9Bharatvarsh on 19.11.2018 (“ Contested Channels ”) among
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 2 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
other such channels on the platform YouTube, provided by
Defendant Nos. 1 and 6.
3.3. In course of its business, the Plaintiff’s creative team creates
various videos / programs on news reporting and current affairs
from across the world. As a part of the programme, the Plaintiff
uses certain pictures and video footage of real / current events and
/ or calamities available online for the sole purpose of reporting
and / or informing the news to the members of the public about the
same. The Plaintiff, wherever law requires, depending on the usage
enters into appropriate agreements with third party content owners.
Between 2020-23, the Plaintiff conceived and created original
news programs on below mentioned events:
a. Laura Hurricane in US;
b. Ongoing Israel Hamas war;
c. Heavy Snowfall in US;
d. New York floods;
e. 2023 Chinese Balloon incident in US;
These events were covered by various news channels across the
globe. In covering these events, in addition to their own creatives,
the Plaintiff and other news channels source and use real-time on-
ground footage from various sources made available online. The
Plaintiff also used some on-ground footage from the material
available online and uploaded the original news programs on the
Contested Channels on various dates from 2020 to 2023.
3.4. Defendant No. 1 is the owner of the online video sharing and
social medią platform YouTube. Defendant No. 2 appears to be a
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 3 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
media brokering company based in the United States of America
(“ US ”). Defendant No. 2 claims to be engaged in the business of
creating and selling media footage of extreme weather conditions
in the US. Defendant No. 3 appears to be engaged in the business
of digital rights management for professional content creators.
Defendant No. 4 appears to be an entity who follows a
videographer named Brandon Clement and covers extreme
weather conditions across the world. Defendant No. 5 appears to
be based in Ankara, Turkey and engaged in the business of
providing English news services. Defendant No. 6 is the Indian
subsidiary of Defendant No. 1 and manages and conducts
Defendant No. 1’s operations within the territory of India.
3.5. In December 2023, the Plaintiff received copyright strike notices
(“ Strike Notices ”) by Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 on the videos
uploaded by the Plaintiff on the Contested Channels alleging
copyright infringement. The videos in respect of which the Strike
Notices had been issued by Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 pertained to
news programs curated by the Plaintiff in relation to the events
reproduced as below:
Sr.
No.
Video Description /
(a) Duration of the
Status
Date uploaded on
video / (b) Alleged
use of Defendants’
Plaintiff’s said
Channels
Alleged Work
1.
America म Laura
ने
(a) 3.29 minutes
/(b)
4 seconds
19 December 2023: Copyright strike issued
by Defendant No. 4.
, 164
मचाई तबाह साल म
सबसेखतरनाक तूफान...
(“said Video 1”)
27 December 2023: Plaintiff submitted a
counter notification inter alia on the ground
of fair dealing / de minimis use. On the
same day, counter notification is forwarded
by Defendant No. 1 to Defendant No. 4.
Uploaded on 28 August
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 4 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
2020
28 December 2023: Defendant No. 1 sent
an email to the Plaintiff informing it that
the Defendant No. 4 has filed a case.
Defendant No. 1 further intimated the
Plaintiff that the copyright strike will be
cleared and further action will be subject to
the outcome of the case.
Current status: Video has been removed
from the platform by the Defendant No. 1
due to a copyright claim by Defendant No.
4.
2.
' '
बम साइ लोन
(a) 7.11 minutes
/(b) 15 seconds
19 December 2023: Copyright strike issued
by Defendant No. 4.
USA
अटैक.. का बगड़ा
| America | Bomb
ैक!
Cyclone | Canada |
Weather Update
(“said Video 2”)
26 December 2023: Plaintiff submitted a
counter notification inter alia on the ground
of fair dealing / de minimis use.
27 December 2023: Counter notification
forwarded by Defendant No. 1 to
Defendant No. 4.
Uploaded on 25
December 2022
28 December 2023: Defendant No. 1 sent
an email to the Plaintiff informing it that
the Defendant No. 4 has filed a case.
Defendant No. 1 further intimated the
Plaintiff that the copyright strike will be
cleared and further action will be subject to
the outcome of the case.
Current status: Video has been deleted from
the platform by the Plaintiff in good faith,
without prejudice to its rights and
contentions.
3.
Hizbullah
का
हनूका
(a) 50.40 minutes /
(b) 50 seconds
20 December 2023: Copyright strike issued
by Defendant No. 5.
Israel
पर हमले
लू ंट...
|
क बहुत बड़ी तैयार !
World war3 | Netanyahu
|Biden (“said Video 3”)
27 December 2023: Plaintiff submitted a
counter notification inter alia on the ground
of fair dealing / de minimis use. On the
same day, counter notification is forwarded
by Defendant No. 1 to Defendant No. 5.
Uploaded on 31 October
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 5 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
2023 Current status: Defendant No. 5 did not
take any steps, and therefore, the copyright
strike stood invalidated was per policy of
Defendant No. 1. However, in good faith,
the Plaintiff had taken down the said Video
3 from its channel.
4.
Florida म
सबसे घातक
(a) 4.22 minutes /
(b)
17 seconds
15 December 2023: Copyright strike issued
by Defendant No. 2.
,
पावर
तूफान सुपर
| Cyclone |
हलकान
Florida Gulf Coast (“said
Video 4”)
22 December 2023: Plaintiff submitted a
counter notification inter alia on the ground
of fair dealing / de minimis use.
28 December 2023: Defendant No. 1 sent
an email to the Plaintiff informing it that
the Defendant No. 2 has filed a case.
Defendant No. 1 further intimated the
Plaintiff that the copyright strike will be
cleared and further action will be subject to
the outcome of the case.
Uploaded on 1 October
2022
Current status: Video has been deleted from
the platform by the Plaintiff in good faith,
without prejudice to its rights and
contentions.
5.
बफ क ऐसी मार
(a) 11.06 minutes /
(b) 7 seconds
15 December 2023: Copyright strike issued
by Defendant No. 2.
ने डाले
सुपरपावर
| America |
हथयार!
Canada | Heavy Snowfall
| Weather News | #TV9D
(“said Video 5”)
22 December 2023: Plaintiff submitted a
counter notification inter alia on the ground
of fair dealing / de minimis use.
28 December 2023: Defendant No. 1 sent
an email to the Plaintiff informing it that
the Defendant No. 2 has filed a case.
Defendant No. 1 further intimated the
Plaintiff that the copyright strike will be
cleared and further action will be subject to
the outcome of the case.
Uploaded on 28
December 2022
Current status: Video has been deleted from
the platform by the Plaintiff in good faith,
without prejudice to its rights and
contentions.
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 6 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
Sr.
No.
Description / Date
uploaded on Plaintiff’s
Duration of the
video / Alleged use
Status
said Channels
of Defendants’
Alleged Work
6. New York Floods:
(a) 2.13 minutes /
(b) 18 seconds
19 December 2023: Copyright strike issued
by Defendant No. 4.
26 December 2023: Plaintiff submitted a
counter notification inter alia on the ground
that (i) the footage is sourced from an
original video of the Plaintiff’s licensor viz.
APTN (ii) fair dealing / de minimis use.
- TV9 (“said video 6”)
Uploaded on 30
September 2023
The Claimant has submitted evidence of
filing a case in US which the Defendant
No. 1 has forwarded to the Plaintiff. The
strike is temporarily cleared by the
Defendant No. 1 on the Plaintiff’s Channels
and is subject to outcome of the said case.
Current status: Video has been removed
from the platform by the Defendant No. 1
due to a copyright claim by Defendant No.
4.
7. Tornado rips through
Texas, Video captures
Car flipped over by high
wind - TV9 (“said Video
7”)
(a) 1.12 minutes /
(b) 52 seconds
15 December 2023: Copyright strike issued
by Defendant No. 3.
26 December 2023: Plaintiff submitted a
counter notification inter alia on the ground
of fair dealing / de minimis use.
Uploaded on 26
March 2022
The Claimant has submitted evidence of
filing a case in US which the Defendant
No. 1 has forwarded to the Plaintiff. The
strike is temporarily cleared by the
Defendant No. 1 on the Plaintiff’s Channels
and is subject to outcome of the said case.
Current status: Video has been deleted from
the platform by the Plaintiff in good faith,
without prejudice to its rights and
contentions.
8. US shoots down
suspected Chinese
(a) 1.17 minutes /
(b) 65 seconds
15 December 2023: Copyright strike issued
by Defendant No. 2.
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 7 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
spy balloon - TV9 (“said
Video 8”)
16 December 2023: Plaintiff submitted a
counter notification inter alia on the ground
that (i) part of the footage is sourced from
an original video of Plaintiff’s licensor viz.
APTN; (ii) fair dealing / de minimis use.
Uploaded on 5 February
2023
The Claimant has submitted evidence of
filing a case in US which the Defendant
No. 1 has forwarded to the Plaintiff. The
strike is temporarily cleared by the
Defendant No. 1 on the Plaintiff’s Channels
and is subject to outcome of the said case.
Current status: Video was removed from
the platform by the Defendant No. 1 due to
a copyright claim by Defendant No. 2.
9.
(a) 1.13 Minutes /
(b) 5 seconds
15 December 2023: Copyright strike issued
by Defendant No. 2.
China Spy
Balloon - TV9 (“said
Video 9”))
16 December 2023: Plaintiff submitted a
counter notification inter alia on the ground
that (i) the footage is sourced from an
original video of Plaintiff’s licensor viz.
APTN; (ii) fair dealing / de minimis use.
Uploaded on 11
February 2023
The Claimant has submitted evidence of
filing a case in US which the Defendant
No. 1 has forwarded to the Plaintiff. The
strike is temporarily cleared by the
Defendant No. 1 on the Plaintiff’s Channels
and is subject to outcome of the said case.
Current status: Video has been deleted from
the platform by the Plaintiff in good faith,
without prejudice to its rights and
contentions.
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 8 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
10.
(a) 3 minutes 36
seconds / (b) 3
minutes 19 seconds
15 December 2023: Copyright strike issued
by Defendant No. 2.
- TV9
(“said Video 10”)
16 December 2023: Plaintiff submitted a
counter notification inter alia on the ground
that (i) the footage is sourced from an
original video of Plaintiff’s licensor viz.
APTN; (ii) fair dealing / de minimis use
Uploaded on 5 February
2023
The Claimant has submitted evidence of
filing a case in US which the Defendant
No. 1 has forwarded to the Plaintiff. The
strike is temporarily cleared by the
Defendant No. 1 on the Plaintiff’s Channels
and is subject to outcome of the said case.
Current status: Video has been deleted from
the platform by the Plaintiff in good faith,
without prejudice to its rights and
contentions.
11. Chinese Spy Balloon:
(a) 56 seconds / (b)
49 seconds
15 December 2023: Copyright strike issued
by Defendant No. 3.
-TV9 (“said Video 11”)
16 December 2023: Plaintiff submitted a
counter notification inter alia on the ground
that (i) the footage is sourced from an
original video of Plaintiff’s licensor viz.
APTN; (ii) fair dealing / de minimis use.
Uploaded on 5 February
2023
The Claimant has submitted evidence of
filing a case in US which the Defendant
No. 1 has forwarded to the Plaintiff. The
strike is temporarily cleared by the
Defendant No. 1 on the Plaintiff’s Channels
and is subject to outcome of the said case.
Current status: Video has been deleted from
the platform by the Plaintiff in good faith,
without prejudice to its rights and
contentions.
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 9 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
3.6. Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 alleged that the videos 1 to 11 (“ Subject
Videos ”) uploaded by the Plaintiff contained certain video footage
of live events (“ Subject Works ”) of which Defendant Nos. 2 to 5
own copyright. Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 did not furnish any proof of
authorship and ownership of the Subject Works and merely
provided description of the Subject Works.
3.7. Upon receiving the first Strike Notice by Defendant No. 2, the
Plaintiff approached Defendant No. 2 vide an email dated
15.12.2023 and expressed its willingness to amicably resolve the
matter. In response, on 18.12.2023, the Plaintiff received a
response from one Mr. Joel B. Rothman of a law firm named SRIP
Law (“ Law Firm ”) in the US, purportedly acting as a counsel for
Defendant No. 3. The Law Firm stated that Defendant No. 3 has
instructed that all communications be directed to the Law Firm.
The Law Firm further called upon the Plaintiff to provide the
revenue records earned from advertising through Google AdSense
Program.
3.8. The Plaintiff vide email dated 20.12.2023 replied to the response
dated 18.12.2023 of the Law Firm and stated that while the
Plaintiff sent the email dated 15.12.2023 to Defendant No. 2 the
Law Firm has responded on behalf of Defendant No. 3, and sought
clarification in this regard. However, the Law Firm did not clarify
how it was responding to an email sent by the Plaintiff to
Defendant No. 2. Considering that the Plaintiff had received Strike
Notices from both Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, the Plaintiff engaged
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 10 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
with the Law Firm and requested for a call. The Plaintiff also sent
a reminder email on 20.12.2023 to which the Law Firm replied on
20.12.2023 asking for further documents viz . YouTube Revenue
Report and Channel Performance Report for the past year
(“ Documents ”), before Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 could propose
settlement.
3.9. On 20.12.2023, the Plaintiff again requested for a call. In response,
the Law Firm stated that the call could happen only when the
Plaintiff provides the Documents to which the Plaintiff responded
stating that the Documents asked for by the Law Firm are
confidential and business-sensitive and could not be provided
without any basis. On 21.12.2023, the Law Firm in a
communication addressed to the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff
was making excuses and reiterated that the call could be set up
only after the Documents are provided. Thereafter, the Plaintiff
and the Law Firm exchanged various emails wherein the Law Firm
kept reiterating its demand for the Documents.
3.10. The Plaintiff’s representative tried to approach the representative
of Defendant No. 4 via social media platform namely ‘X’. In
response, the Law Firm wrote to the Plaintiff stating that it was
unethical on part of the Plaintiff to approach Defendant No. 4 ex
parte and that Defendant No. 4 was also a client of the Law Firm.
The Law Firm threatened the Plaintiff that if the Plaintiff does not
provide the Documents requested by the Law Firm, ‘ this matter
will go very poorly ’ for the Plaintiff. The Law Firm also appears to
be representing Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and Defendant Nos. 2 to 4
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 11 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
appears to be acting in concert. The Plaintiff also wrote to
Defendant No. 5 multiple times seeking resolution of the matter,
however, no response was received from Defendant No. 5.
3.11. The tone and tenor of communications of the Law Firm
purportedly acting for Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 was threatening and
non-cooperative. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were allegedly coercing
the Plaintiff to do an illegal act of forwarding the confidential
business data of the Plaintiff in the form of Documents which is
irrelevant to the present matter and pertains only to a very few out
of the hundreds of videos uploaded by the Plaintiff. The conduct of
Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 is allegedly dishonest and that Defendant
Nos. 2 to 4 wants to extort unlawful monies from the Plaintiff.
3.12. As per the policy of Defendant Nos. 1 and 6 (“ YouTube Policy ”)
with respect to the platform YouTube, if a channel receives 3
Strike Notices, the channel is subject to termination, all videos are
liable to be removed and no new channels can be created. The
YouTube Policy further provides that for entities part of YouTube
Partner Program, there is a courtesy period of 7 days after which
the channel is automatically disabled. The YouTube Policy further
provides that if the counter notification is resolved in favour of the
uploader such as the Plaintiff or the claim is retracted by the
claimant such as Defendant Nos. 2 to 5, then only the channel
won’t be impacted.
3.13. The Plaintiff also filed its counter notifications with Defendant
Nos. 1 and 6 against the Strike Notices. Pursuant to the submission
of counter notifications by the Plaintiff to the Strike Notices,
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 12 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
Defendant Nos. 1 and 6 sent an automated email stating that
Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 had 10 US business days to respond by
providing evidence that Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 have taken legal
action against the Plaintiff. Thereafter, Defendant Nos. 1 and 6
shared evidence with the Plaintiff in respect of the proceedings
which had been instituted by Defendant No. 3 in respect of its
claim of copyright infringement of the Subject Works. Upon
perusing the said evidence, the Plaintiff learnt that Defendant No.
3 in its personal capacity as well as purportedly acting on behalf of
Defendant Nos. 2 and 4 had instituted a copyright infringement
case against the Plaintiff as well as various third parties before the
Northern District Court of California, the US, under the title Viral
DRM LLC v. Underknown Corp., et al , Case Number 3:23-cv-
06598-JSC, on 22.12.2023 (“ US Case ”). Defendant No. 5 has not
filed any case pursuant to the submission of the counter
notification by the Plaintiff.
3.14. On the first date of hearing in the present Suit, the counsel for
Defendant No. 1 appeared before this Court and stated that the
Contested Channels have not been removed by Defendant No. 1
and that only some of the videos have been removed by Defendant
No. 1. As no one appeared on behalf of Defendant Nos. 2 to 5, this
Court issued notice to Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 on the Plaintiff’s
application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC in the
present Suit.
3.15. The summons were duly served upon Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 by
way of an email on 01.03.2024 and an affidavit of service dated
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 13 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
01.03.2024 was filed by the Plaintiff. However, Defendant Nos. 2
to 5 did not enter appearance before this Court. Thereafter, this
Court vide order dated 19.03.2024, issued summons in the present
Suit to Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 and listed the matter before the Joint
Registrar for completion of pleadings. Accordingly, the summons
in the present Suit were served upon Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 vide
email dated 30.04.2024 and were sent through Speed Post as well
on 04.05.2024. An affidavit of service dated 22.05.2024 to the said
effect was filed by the Plaintiff. The present Suit was thereafter
listed before the Joint Registrar of this Court on 27.05.2024, on
which date again no one entered appearance on behalf of
Defendant Nos. 2 to 5. In the order dated 27.05.2024, the Joint
Registrar recorded that Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are deemed to have
been served.
3.16. Thereafter the present Suit was listed before this Court on
05.07.2024, and the counsel for the Plaintiff had pointed out to this
Court that in a separate suit filed by a third party being
CS(COMM) 953/2023 in which similar issues to those raised in
the present Suit are pending adjudication before this Court,
Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are continuing to appear before this Court.
Accordingly, this Court had issued notice to Mr. Saurabh Bindal,
the Counsel who was appearing on behalf of Defendant Nos. 2 to 5
in CS (Comm) 953/2023. Accordingly, when the present Suit was
listed before the Joint Registrar of this Court on 27.08.2024, Mr.
Saurabh Bindal appeared and submitted that Defendant Nos. 2 to 5
have not provided any instructions to him to appear in the present
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 14 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
Suit. However, Mr. Saurabh Bindal provided a new email address
of Defendant No. 2 to 5 and the Joint Registrar directed that a fresh
notice be issued on the said email address. A fresh notice was
issued on the said email address on 06.09.2024. However,
Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 have failed to appear in the present Suit
even thereafter.
3.17. The present Suit was thereafter listed before the Joint Registrar of
this Court on 23.01.2025, on which date the right of Defendant
Nos. 2 to 5 to file their Written Statement was closed. Thereafter
the present Suit was listed before this Court on 24.03.2025, and
this Court observed that Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are not interested in
defending the present proceedings and accordingly proceeded ex
parte against Defendant Nos. 2 to 5. The Plaintiff has also recently
become aware that Defendant Nos. 3 vide notice 15.05.2024 has
voluntarily dismissed the US Case qua 37 channels on the platform
YouTube including the Contested Channels.
3.18. This conscious non-appearance before this Court and the voluntary
dismissal of the proceedings in the US Case highlights that
Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 have no real or substantial defense to offer
in the present Suit. The present Suit does not warrant recording of
oral evidence, particularly where there is no indication of
Defendant Nos. 2 to 5’s intent to appear or defend their position in
the present Suit. In the absence of any valid reason for the non-
appearance of Defendant Nos. 2 to 5, there is no impediment to the
expeditious summary disposal of the present Suit.
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 15 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
3.19. It is evident from the correspondence exchanged between the
Parties that the Defendants have never established to the Plaintiff
the copyright and / or ownership in the Subject Works, the portions
of which allegedly have been used by the Plaintiff. Defendant Nos.
2 to 5 have thus without establishing their copyright proceeded to
issue Strike Notices against the Subject Videos.
3.20. The nature and subject matter of the Subject Works allegedly
owned by Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 in their entirety consists of facts
of nature and current affairs. The Subject Works depict natural
calamities and their destructive aftermath such as cyclonic storms,
heavy rain and flash floods, excessive snowfall and blizzard,
uprooted trees, devastated buildings and houses, cars plying and
regular people walking and taking measures like snow clearing at
the sites of natural weather disturbances. In other instances, the
Subject Works also touch upon global security threat by showing a
murky spy balloon suspected to be launched by China and an
animated version of the bombardment on Gaza. A prima facie
observation and analysis of these facts of weather and global
security threat events purportedly recorded by Defendant Nos. 2 to
5 demonstrates and reveals that they are universal, nonimaginative
and generic in nature, available in the public domain having been
widely and commonly reported and discussed, performed and
rendered in public interest and to be enjoyed by the public as a
matter of right.
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 16 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
3.21. It is a settled law that no copyright exists in facts, ideas, news,
legends, themes, plots and other such subject matter. The rationale
provided by judicial precedents is that the nature and content of
such works are inherently incapable of being created by or
originated with the alleged author of any work as they are
universal and generic, widely disseminated and available in the
public domain, curtailed by the right of the public to partake
information generally and critically important to their lives, and
devoid of modicum of creativity on its own. Therefore, under the
Indian copyright law, no person can claim such subject-matter
including the facts of weather events and global security threat to
be their private property and consequently the Courts have never
recognized or granted copyright protection and rights of authorship
over discovery and rendition of such facts and current affairs.
3.22. An analysis of the manner of expression in the Subject Works
would show that the facts of weather events allegedly generated by
Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 are mere raw recordings rendered in the
most impassive and mechanical manner through the placement and
use of cameras. The rendition of said facts is a literal and wholly
unaltered reproduction of weather events as directly and ordinarily
witnessed by any passerby or onlooker, without infusing a
modicum of creative embellishment and expending any effort by
the sweat of their brow. In capturing the natural calamities and
global security threats and its consequences, the alleged recorders
of the Subject Works namely Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 have not
deployed any modicum of creativity that would transform the of
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 17 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
the Subject Works sufficient enough as seen from the perspective
of any impartial and reasonable observer to satisfy and meet the
lowest threshold of copyrightable work and protectable authorship
under the Copyright Act, 1957 (“ Act ”). The Subject Works
recorded by Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 have not transformed the
weather event, as seen from the perspective of any impartial and
reasonable observer.
3.23. It is a settled law that character of use and manners of expression
of cinematographic films that are not transformative cannot be
protected under copyright law. As per the legal principles
governing the field of copyright, cinematographic films containing
literal reproductions of universal and generic facts including facts
of nature and current affairs which are bereft of imaginative and
judicious embellishment cannot be termed transformative.
Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 have not furnished any proof of ownership
of the Subject Works. Therefore, no copyright subsists in the
Subject Works.
3.24. A large number of people including the Plaintiff’s subscribers have
poor access to such information of public importance on account
of being lay persons and they rely solely on news channels such as
the Plaintiff’s to learn and educate themselves about impending
social crisis such as the perils of global security threats and climate
change which personally affects their own lives and that is exerting
a deleterious effect on the world at large. Hence, the intent and
purpose of the Plaintiff's usage of the Subject Works was to report
on matters of such crucial public interest. Such use does not
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 18 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
amount to copyright infringement as per section 52 (1)(a)(iii) of
the Act.
3.25. The Division Bench of this Court in ESPN Star Sports v Global
Broadcast news Ltd & Ors, RFA(OS) 25/2008, inter alia , while
dealing with the question that whether use of clips from live
cricket match for the purpose of news reporting was exempted
from copyright infringement liability, vide judgment dated
26.09.2008 observed that use of footage / clippings from the
cricket match for the purpose of news reporting would amount to
fair dealing. Thus, the portions of the Subject Works which have
been used by the Plaintiff are not capable of copyright protection
and the question of any copyright infringement having been
committed by the Plaintiff by using portions of the Subject Works
thus does not arise.
3.26. The Plaintiff’s subsequent works viz . the Subject Videos are
substantially different from the Subject Works in its qualitative
aspects as well. The anchors have supplied their fresh analysis and
interpretation of events, structuring their material and marshalling
their facts into a coherent form of news reporting which is
completely absent from the Subject Works which are merely raw
recording of live events. Even assuming that Defendant Nos. 2 to 5
own any copyright in the Subject Works, the Plaintiff has merely
used minimal portions of the same fairly for reporting of facts of
nature and current events and current affairs.
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 19 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
3.27. The Subject Videos have been transformed into structured news
reporting making the Subject Videos distinct from the unstructured
and passerby account rendered by Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 in the
Subject Works. The Plaintiff has put in sufficient intellectual effort
creating stark dissimilarities between the Subject Works and
Subject Videos. On prima facie viewing of the Subject Videos, it
will be evident that the Subject Videos consist of longer
commentary and analysis and interpretation of climate change and
its consequences which is followed by minimal and very short
extracts of the Subject Works that are used only illustratively and
as a reference in furtherance of public interest. The nature of usage
of the Subject Works was to inform and educate its viewers and
subscribers about the imminent danger and impact of internecine
warfare and climate change on human lives and their ecological
systems that is taking place globally and not just in isolated
corners of the world. Such use does not amount to copyright
infringement as per section 52 (1)(a)(iii) of the Act.
3.28. Reliance was placed on India TV Independent News Service Pvt.
Ltd. vs Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd. 2012 SCC Online Del 4298 to
submit that the Plaintiff’s minimal use of portions of the Subject
Works in the Subject Videos is exempted from copyright
infringement liability as per the doctrine of fair use - de minimis
non curat lex , that such miniscule use is not actionable before a
court of law, that it does not amount to copyright infringement,
that no harm can ever be caused by such trivial and miniscule use
of the Subject Works as the nature of usage of the Subject Works
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 20 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
bears no resemblance to the Subject Videos, that the intended
audience and relevant market of the two works also is entirely
different. Thus, no prejudice or loss can be caused to the recording
operations of Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 by the news reporting of the
Plaintiff that contains trivial and minimal reference to the Subject
Works.
3.29. The Plaintiff has also entered into a licensing agreement with
Associated Press Television News Limited, UK (“ APTN ”)
whereby vide International Licensing Agreement dated 20.10.2014
(“ APTN License ”) APTN provides access to the Plaintiff to a
dynamic portal wherein various videos in relation to international
news and events that are uploaded and are available for download
by the Plaintiff. Such videos contain unique identification
numbers. The major portions of the allegedly infringing portions in
the Subject Videos are taken from APTN portal and Plaintiff’s
own creatives and commercial advertisements and rest of the
portions are taken from videos available online. Thus, there is no
use whatsoever of the Subject Works. No license whatsoever is
required by the Plaintiff for the usage of the portions of the Subject
Works in the Subject Videos and thus the APTN License is only an
additional reason which demonstrates that the acts of the Plaintiff
could never amount to copyright infringement.
3.30. The Plaintiff is ready and willing to forego its claim for damages
against the Defendants and accordingly is not pressing for prayers
made in Prayer Paragraph Nos. 47 (iii) to 47 (viii) clauses of the
Plaint. In light of the statement of Defendant No. 1 that Defendant
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 21 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
No. 1 has no role to play in respect of the merits of the dispute
relating to copyright infringement, the Plaintiff is not pressing for
reliefs against Defendant Nos. 1 and 6.
3.31. Therefore, there is no compelling reason why the present Suit
should not be disposed of and why the prayers made in the Prayer
Paragraph Nos. 47 (i) and 47 (ii) of the Plaint qua Defendant Nos.
2 to 5 namely (i) A decree and order against Defendant Nos. 2 to 5,
their directors, partners, employees, associates, affiliates, assignees
and / or any other person claiming through them, restraining them
from issuing any groundless threat to the Plaintiff alleging
copyright infringement in respect of the Subject Videos; and (ii) A
decree and order of declaration that the Subject Videos and the
usage of the Subject Works do not amount to copyright
infringement of the Subject Works, should not be granted
summarily before recording of oral evidence particularly in view
of the fact that Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 have chosen not to appear
before this Court. The issues in the present Suit can be determined
as a matter of law based on the documentary evidence already
filed, including the Plaintiff’s counter-notifications, the APTN
License, and the Plaintiff’s correspondence with Defendant Nos. 2
to 5 and that no further oral testimony is required to resolve the
matter in the present Suit.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT No. 1:
4. The learned Counsel for Defendant No. 1 submitted that the copyright
claims made by Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 with respect to the Subject Videos
and the disputed questions of copyright infringement / non-infringement are
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 22 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
solely a matter of dispute between the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 2 to 5,
and that Defendant No. 1 is merely an intermediary and not in a position to
adjudicate contested issues of copyright infringement as raised in the present
Suit, to be determined by competent courts.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT N OS . 2 TO 5:
5. Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 have not filed the Written Statement in the
present Suit and / or the reply to the present Application and accordingly
have not made any submissions in the present Suit and the Application.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
6. Order XIIIA of CPC as amended by the CC Act empowers the Court
to grant a summary judgment against a defendant where on an application
filed in that regard, the Court considers that the defendant has no real
prospect of successfully defending a claim, and there is no other compelling
reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral
evidence.
7. In the present case, the record reflects that summons in the present
Suit were initially served upon Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 vide email dated
01.03.2024. Despite such service, Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 failed to enter
appearance before this Court. Consequently, vide order dated 19.03.2024,
this Court directed issuance of summons afresh to Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 and
listed the matter before the Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings.
Pursuant thereto, summons were again served upon Defendant Nos. 2 to 5
vide email dated 30.04.2024 and were additionally dispatched through Speed
Post on 04.05.2024. The present Suit was thereafter listed before the learned
Joint Registrar on 27.05.2024. On the said date as well, Defendant Nos. 2 to
5 failed to enter appearance. Accordingly, vide order dated 27.05.2024, the
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 23 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
Joint Registrar recorded that Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 stood deemed to have
been served. It is further borne out from the record that, upon the counsel
appearing for Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in one suit being CS (Comm) 953/2023
pending before this Court, furnishing a new email address of Defendant Nos.
2 to 5, notice was again issued to the said email address on 06.09.2024.
Even thereafter, Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 failed to enter appearance in the
present Suit. In these circumstances, and in view of repeated service of
summons and continued non-appearance, the right of Defendant Nos. 2 to 5
to file the Written Statement was closed vide order dated 23.01.2025.
Subsequently, vide order dated 24.03.2025, this Court observed that
Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 were not interested in defending the present Suit and
proceeded ex parte against Defendant Nos. 2 to 5. Accordingly, all the
averments made in the Plaint have to be taken to be admitted. Further, since
no affidavit of Admission / Denial has been filed on behalf of the Defendant
Nos. 2 to 5 in respect of the documents filed with the Plaint, in terms of Rule
3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, the same are deemed
to have been admitted.
8. In order to decide the present Application, it is required to consider,
firstly , whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the Subject
Videos and the usage of the Subject Works do not amount to copyright
infringement of the Subject Works and, secondly , whether the Plaintiff is
entitled to a decree and order restraining Defendant Nos. 2 to 5, their
directors, partners, employees, associates, affiliates, assignees and / or any
other person claiming through them from allegedly issuing any groundless
threat to the Plaintiff alleging copyright infringement in respect of the
Subject Videos.
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 24 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
9. Insofar as the declaration sought by the Plaintiff that the Subject
Videos and the use of the Subject Works do not constitute copyright
infringement of the Subject Works is concerned, the Plaintiff has primarily
contended that:
a) no copyright subsists in the Subject Works as they depict natural
events and current affairs;
b) the usage of the Subject Works in the Subject Videos is protected
under Section 52(1)(a)(iii) of the Act as ‘fair use’;
c) the portions used are de minimis ; and
d) substantial portions of the footage were sourced from APTN under
a licensing arrangement.
10. While unauthorized exploitation of a cinematograph film would
ordinarily amount to infringement, what is on record is limited use of the
Subject Works within the Subject Videos, claimed to be ‘fair use’ in terms of
Section 52(1)(a)(iii) of the Act for the purpose of reporting of current events
and current affairs. In these circumstances, and on the basis of the material
placed on record, the Court has to assess the entitlement of the Plaintiff to
the declaratory relief that the Subject Videos and the use of the Subject
Works do not amount to copyright infringement of the Subject Works in
light of the statutory framework and the uncontroverted factual position
emerging from the record. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the
Plaintiff, it is also necessary to examine whether the Plaintiff’s use of the
Subject Works in the Subject Videos falls within the doctrine of de minimis
non curat lex , as recognized in copyright jurisprudence.
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 25 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
11. The Section 52(1)(a)(iii) of the Act provides that a fair dealing with a
work while reporting current event or a current affair does not constitute an
infringement of copyright. The Courts in ascertaining whether extracts taken
from copyrighted work have been put to fair use, have considered the extent
and the length of the extracts as a relevant factor and have also held that the
long extracts followed by short comments may in certain circumstances be
unfair, while short extracts followed by long comments may be fair.
However, the Courts have also observed that it is impossible to define what
is ‘fair dealing’ and that it is a question of fact and degree of impression.
12. In the present case, the material placed on record, including the
tabulated particulars of the Subject Videos, shows that portions of the
Subject Works have been used for limited durations within the overall
content of the Subject Videos. The table indicates that the extracts from the
Subject Works are brief and segmented, and are embedded within the larger
narrative and commentary forming part of the Subject Videos. The use is not
shown to be a standalone broadcast or independent commercial exploitation
of the Subject Works, but forms part of a composite programme contained in
the Subject Videos.
13. A perusal of the tabulated particulars further illustrates that the
portions of the Subject Works claimed in each of the Subject Videos in
comparison to the total duration of the Subject Videos. In several instances,
the portions of the Subject Works amount to mere seconds out of Subject
Videos running several minutes in length. It is also the case of the Plaintiff
that major portions of the of the Subject Works in the Subject Videos are
taken from APTN portal under the APTL License. This assertion assumes
relevance inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s use of such portions of the Subject
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 26 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
Works would be traceable to APTL License, claimed to be a lawful source.
In the absence of any Written Statement or material to the contrary from
Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 disputing the existence or scope of the APTN License
or the major portions of the Subject Works in the Subject Videos being taken
from APTN portal, the said averment remains uncontroverted and is deemed
to be admitted by Defendant Nos. 2 to 5.
14. This Court in India TV ( supra ) emphasized that the doctrine of de
minimis serves to filter out claims where the extent of copying is trivial and
the copying which had been done had caused no demonstrable harm to the
right of the copyright owner. In view of the limited duration of the Subject
Works used in the Subject Videos, the context of news reporting, and no
demonstrated harm to the right of the alleged copyright owner namely
Defendant Nos. 2 to 5, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
Subject Videos would fall within the doctrine of fair use and de minimis non
curat lex and that the use of the Subject Works by the Plaintiff in the Subject
Videos does not constitute infringement.
15. The next question for consideration is that the Plaintiff’s prayer for
protection against groundless threats of copyright infringement. The
Plaintiff’s prayer for a decree and order restraining Defendant Nos. 2 to 5,
and / or any other person claiming through Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 from
issuing any groundless threat to the Plaintiff alleging copyright infringement
in respect of the Subject Videos is premised on Section 60 of the Act which
reads as under:
“ 60. Remedy in the case of groundless threat of legal
proceedings.—Where any person claiming to be the owner of
copyright in any work, by circulars, advertisements or otherwise,
threatens any other person with any legal proceedings or liability in
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 27 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
respect of an alleged infringement of the copyright, any person
aggrieved thereby may, notwithstanding anything contained [in
Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963),] institute a
declaratory suit that the alleged infringement to which the threats
related was not in fact an infringement of any legal rights of the
person making such threats and may in any such suit—
(a) obtain an injunction against the continuance of such threats; and
(b) recover such damages, if any, as he has sustained by reason of
such threats:
Provided that this section shall not apply if the person making such
threats, with due diligence, commences and prosecutes an action for
infringement of the copyright claimed by him. ”
16. Section 60 of the Act confers a statutory remedy where a person, is
threatened with any alleged infringement of copyright and if, in fact, the
actions of the person threatened do not constitute any infringement of the
legal rights of the person who makes such threats, he can file a declaratory
suit under Section 60 of the Act.
17. In the present case, as has been observed earlier, the Plaintiff has
placed on record the particulars of the Subject Videos and the manner in
which portions of the Subject Works have been used therein. The tabulated
details reflect that the portions of the Subject Works are of limited and
segmented duration, forming part of a larger narrative and commentary
contained in the Subject Videos. The use of Subject Works is embedded
within the overall programme content of the Subject Videos and is not
shown to be a standalone broadcast or independent commercial exploitation
of the Subject Works. The averments in the Plaint specifically plead that
major portions of the of the Subject Works in the Subject Videos are taken
from APTN portal under the APTL License. These averments have not been
controverted by Defendant Nos. 2 to 5, who have chosen not to enter
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 28 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
appearance in the present Suit. In the absence of any rebuttal, and having
regard to the material placed on record, the Plaintiff has prima facie
demonstrated that the Subject Videos do not constitute infringement of the
Subject Works.
18. In these circumstances, the Plaintiff has demonstrated that the threats
issued by Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 alleging infringement of copyright in
respect of the Subject Videos is not, in fact, an infringement of any legal
rights of Defendant Nos. 2 to 5.
19. However, even where a plaintiff in a suit under Section 60 of the Act
demonstrates that the alleged infringement to which the threats relate is not,
in fact, an infringement of any legal right of the person making such threats,
the Court must still consider whether the condition stipulated in the proviso
to Section 60 of the Act is attracted. The proviso to Section 60 of the Act
provides that Section 60 of the Act shall not apply if the person making such
threat, with due diligence, commences and prosecutes an action for
infringement of the copyright claimed by him. The Bombay High Court in
Manya Vejju @ MV Kasi vs Sapna Bhog , Neutral Citation: 2023:BHC-
AS:37466 observed that the crucial phrases in the proviso to Section 60 of
the Act are ‘ with due diligence ’ and ‘ commences and prosecutes an action
for infringement ’. The phrase ‘ due diligence ’ connotes that the action is
initiated in good faith and with such care, caution and foresight as the
circumstances of the particular case demand and the phrase ‘ commences and
prosecute s’ indicates that threat of action ought not to be an empty rhetoric,
but prosecution of the cause in the right earnest. If these conditions are
satisfied, the action cannot be termed as groundless and, therefore, the main
part of Section 60 of the Act providing a remedy in case of groundless threat
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 29 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
of legal proceedings ceases to operate. The expression ‘ obtain an injunction
against the continuance of such threats ’ appearing in Section 60 of the Act
further indicates that the Court is empowered not merely to examine past
conduct but to restrain the repetition or persistence of such threats.
20. The Bombay High Court in Manya Vejju further observed that the
word ‘ action ’ is governed by the expression ‘ commences and prosecutes...
for infringement of copyright ’ and that the language employed in Section 60
of the Act warrants that a proceeding as envisaged in Section 60 of the Act
must be a meaningful one and prosecuted with due diligence and that such
proceeding ought to be capable of affording resolution of the disputes
between the parties on the aspect of the infringement of the copyright,
effectively and completely. Thus, a proceeding which may not afford the
adjudication and resolution of the dispute over the alleged infringement of
the copyright, would not constitute an ‘ action ’ contemplated by the proviso
to Section 60 of the Act.
21. In the present case, Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 issued Strike Notices in
December 2023 in respect of the Subject Videos uploaded by the Plaintiff on
the Contested Channels, alleging that the Subject Videos infringed copyright
in the Subject Works, allegedly owned by Defendant Nos. 2 to 5. Upon
submission of counter notifications by the Plaintiff to the Strike Notices in
accordance with the YouTube Policy, Defendant No. 3 instituted the US
Case alleging infringement of the Subject Works. Evidence of the
proceeding in the US Case was furnished to Defendant No. 1 pursuant to the
counter notification mechanism. It is evident from the material placed on
record that the US Case was subsequently voluntarily dismissed qua the
Contested Channels vide notice dated 15.05.2024 and was not pursued to
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 30 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
adjudication qua the Contested Channels. Though it is submitted by the the
Plaintiff that the Plaintiff learnt that Defendant No. 3 in its personal capacity
as well as purportedly acting on behalf of Defendant Nos. 2 and 4 had
instituted the US Case, the cause title of the US Case as reflected in the
voluntary dismissal notice dated 15.05.2024 and the order dated 17.03.2025
passed in the US Case shows that the only plaintiff in those proceedings was
Defendant No. 3 in the present Suit and insofar as Defendant No. 5 is
concerned, no proceeding are evidently shown to have been instituted
against the Plaintiff pursuant to the counter notification issued in respect of
the Subject Videos by the Plaintiff.
22. In these circumstances, the earlier institution of the US Case cannot
be regarded as commencement and prosecution of ‘ an action for
infringement of the copyright claimed ’ within the meaning of the proviso to
Section 60 of the Act, since the US Case neither resulted in, nor were
capable of resulting in, any determination of the alleged claims of copyright
infringement of the Subject Works, as the same having been voluntarily
dismissed by Defendant No. 3 qua the Contested Channels vide notice dated
15.05.2024.
23. Needless to say, the statutory language employed in the proviso to
Section 60 of the Act is of significance. The legislature has not used the
word ‘commences’ simpliciter , but has consciously employed the expression
‘ commences and prosecutes ’. The use of the conjunctive is deliberate and
indicative of legislative intent that the action must not only be initiated but
must also be carried forward in a manner that permits adjudication of the
controversy. Bryan A. Garner ed., Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. Thomson
West 2004) also defines the word ‘prosecute’ as ‘to commence and carry out
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 31 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
a legal action’ and defines ‘voluntary dismissal’ as ‘a plaintiff’s dismissal of
a lawsuit at the plaintiff’s own request or by stipulation of all the parties.’ A
voluntary dismissal, by its very nature, brings the proceedings to an end at
the instance of the plaintiff, without any adjudication on merits. It does not
result in determination of rights, or culminate in a judicial finding on the
alleged infringement. In the present case, the US Case having been
voluntarily dismissed by Defendant No. 3 qua the Contested Channels, the
action being never prosecuted to adjudication, results in the consequence
that, as on date, on the basis of the material placed on record, there exists no
subsisting suit filed by Defendant No. 3 or an action wherein the alleged
copyright claims of Defendant No. 3 are being examined or determined.
24. Therefore, in the present case, commencement of ‘ an action for
infringement of the copyright claimed…’ and its voluntary dismissal by
Defendant No. 3 cannot be construed as a bar to granting relief to the
Plaintiff under Section 60 of the Act merely because ‘ an action for
infringement of the copyright claimed…’ was once filed even though
voluntarily dismissed without any determination on merits.
25. As regards Defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5, the material placed on record
reflects that Defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 have issued Strike Notices in respect
of the Subject Videos uploaded by the Plaintiff on the Contested Channels,
alleging that the Subject Videos incorporate footage forming part of the
Subject Works, in which Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 allegedly claim to own
copyright.
26. The material placed on record shows that after issuance of Strike
Notices in respect of the Subject Videos alleging infringement of the Subject
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 32 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
Works, Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, acting through the Law Firm, required the
Plaintiff to furnish the Documents as a precondition to any discussion.
27. After the requests made by the Plaintiff for a call to explore
resolution, the Law Firm stated that no discussion would take place unless
the Documents were first disclosed. Upon the Plaintiff declining to furnish
the Documents, the Law Firm conveyed that failing compliance, ‘ the matter
will go very poorly ’ for the Plaintiff.
28. In this factual backdrop, the alleged conduct of Defendant Nos. 2 to 5
in question requires examination under Section 60 of the Act. To reiterate,
Section 60 of the Act is attracted where threats of legal proceedings or
liability in respect of an alleged infringement of copyright are made. The
proviso to Section 60 of the Act stipulates that the remedy under Section 60
of the Act shall cease to apply if the person making such threats commences
and prosecutes an action for infringement of the copyright claimed. The
material placed on record does not disclose commencement and prosecution
of an action for infringement of the copyright claimed by Defendant Nos. 2,
4 and 5. The issuance of Strike Notices, accompanied by demands for the
Documents coupled with communications indicating adverse consequences
in the event of non-compliance, cannot be construed as commencement and
prosecution of an action for infringement of the copyright claimed in the
Subject Works.
29. As per the YouTube Policy, Strike Notices are not capable of
affording resolution of the disputes between the Parties on the aspect of the
infringement of the copyright. Defendant No. 1 in its written statement filed
in the present Suit has submitted that, a user receives a strike notice, which
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 33 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
acts as a warning. The user then can seek to resolve the strike in three ways,
which are:
(i) the strike expires after 90 days; or
(ii) the user submits a counter-notification; or
(iii) the claim of copyright is retracted.
30. If the user submits a counter-notification which is the case in the
present Suit, it is forwarded to the claimant, if it meets all legal requirements
and explains the user’s right to use the content. The claimant then has 10
business days to reply to the counter-notification and respond with evidence
that the claimant has taken legal action to keep the content from being
restored to YouTube. While the issue of copyright infringement is
adjudicated by a competent court, the concerned strikes on the channel stand
resolved upon receipt and review of the evidence of legal proceedings, and
the concerned competent Court determines whether or not the content at
issue infringes copyright.
31. In the present case, pursuant to the submission of counter notifications
by the Plaintiff, Defendant Nos. 1 and 6 sent an automated email stating that
Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 would have 10 US business days to respond by
providing evidence that Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 have taken legal action
against the Plaintiff. A strike notice, as explained by Defendant No. 1, is an
intermediary-driven compliance process and does not, by itself, amount to
recourse before a competent court of law. Therefore, qua Defendant Nos. 2,
4 and 5, who evidently have not instituted any action affording resolution of
the disputes between the Parties on the aspect of the infringement of the
copyright in the Subject Works before a competent court despite the Plaintiff
having submitted counter-notifications, the issuance of Strike Notices to the
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 34 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
Plaintiff, coupled with the absence of ‘ any action ’ as envisaged under
Section 60 of the Act, renders the threats actionable within the meaning of
Section 60 of the Act.
32. Defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 have chosen not to enter appearance in the
present Suit and have not controverted the averments made by the Plaintiff.
In the present case, since the US Case, once filed and voluntarily dismissed
by Defendant No. 3 qua the Contested Channels vide notice dated
15.05.2024, cannot be regarded as the action envisaged under the proviso to
Section 60 of the Act, Defendant No. 3 stands on no different footing than
Defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5. The Plaintiff has, thus, made out grounds for
restraining Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 and / or any other person claiming through
Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 from issuing groundless threats of copyright
infringement.
33. Accordingly, Defendant Nos. 2 to 5, their directors, partners,
employees, associates, affiliates, assignees and / or any other person
claiming through Defendant Nos. 2 to 5, are restrained from issuing any
groundless threats to the Plaintiff alleging copyright infringement in respect
of the Subject Videos. It is further declared that the Subject Videos and the
usage of the Subject Works therein do not constitute copyright infringement
of the Subject Works.
34. Accordingly, the present Application is allowed and, consequently,
Suit stands decreed against Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 and in favour of the
Plaintiff in terms of Prayer Paragraph Nos. 47(i) and 47(ii) of the Plaint.
Since no relief is claimed against Defendant Nos. 1 and 6, and the Plaintiff
is not pressing the remaining prayers including for grant of damages against
all the Defendants, the Suit is disposed of with the above directions. Pending
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 35 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02
applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Let the Decree Sheet be drawn
up accordingly.
TEJAS KARIA, J
FEBRUARY 28, 2026
HK
CS(COMM) 9/2024 Page 36 of 36
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:01.03.2026
00:02