Full Judgment Text
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 19 March, 2025
I.A. 7131/2025
In
+ CS(COMM) 418/2024
APPLAUSE ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE
LIMITED .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Deepak Singhal and Mr. Gaurav
Dhingra, Advocates.
versus
WWW.9XMOVIES.COM.TW & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The present suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction,
restraining the defendants from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff
along with other ancillary reliefs.
C ASE SETUP IN THE P LAINT
2. The Plaintiff, Applause Entertainment Private Limited, is a company
engaged in the business of creation, production, acquisition, exploitation,
distribution and monetisation of various audio-visual contents such as web
series, motion pictures, etc., on digital as well as non-digital platforms. The
plaintiff is stated to be one of India’s leading studios/producers of fictional
as well as non-fictional shows/web series/ films and has a reputation for
producing high-quality diversified content.
3. The Plaintiff has produced several acclaimed TV and web series,
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 418/2024 Page 1 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:26.03.2025
17:10:41
including Scam 1992: The Harshad Mehta Story (2020) and Rudra: The
Edge of Darkness (2022), which have been highly rated and ranked among
India’s top shows by IMDb and other rating platforms. In recognition of its
excellence in content creation, the plaintiff has received numerous awards.
4. Over the years, the plaintiff has established itself as a highly reputed
name in the Media and Entertainment industry, particularly in the domain of
OTT (‘Over-the-Top’) content. One such web series produced by the
plaintiff is ‘UNDEKHI ’ , an Indian Hindi-language crime thriller, the first
season of which premiered on the digital platform ‘SonyLIV’ in 2020.
Following the success of its debut season, the plaintiff produced a second
season, which was released in 2022. The present suit pertains to the rights of
the plaintiff in the third season of the aforesaid show/ series which was
th
released on the digital platform, SonyLIV, on 10 May 2024
5. It is stated that the plaintiff’s series constitutes a work of visual
recording accompanied by sound recordings, qualifying as a
“ cinematograph film ” under Section 2(f) of the Copyright Act, 1957
(hereinafter the ‘Copyright Act’). As the producer of the said series, the
plaintiff is deemed to be the rightful owner and author of the copyright
therein, in accordance with Section 2(d) read with Section 17 of the
Copyright Act. Therefore, it is stated that the plaintiff holds the exclusive
right to communicate the series to the public.
6. In furtherance of this right, the plaintiff entered into a license
th
agreement dated 17 April 2020, with Culver Max Entertainment Private
Limited (formerly known as Sony Pictures Network India Private Limited )
(hereinafter the ‘ Licensee ’), which owns the digital platform SonyLIV,
whereby the plaintiff, as the licensor, granted the said licensee an exclusive
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 418/2024 Page 2 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:26.03.2025
17:10:41
license to exploit, inter alia , the first season of the said show/series for a
term of seven years, with worldwide territorial rights. Subsequently, the
plaintiff entered into amendment agreements, the latest being the Fourth
th
Amendment Agreement dated 17 October 2023, whereby the licensee was
granted an exclusive license to exploit the second and third seasons of the
show/series. Accordingly, the said show/series is available exclusively on
the platform owned and operated by the licensee under a valid license from
the plaintiff, for which the plaintiff has received valuable consideration.
7. Defendants no. 1, 2, and 14 to 19 are websites/URLs engaged in the
unauthorized broadcasting, relaying, and communication to the public of
pirated and unlicensed content, including but not limited to the streaming of
films, web series, and other audio-visual works.
8. Defendants no. 3 to 11 are Internet Service Providers and Telecom
Service Providers (‘ISPs’/ ‘TSPs’), engaged in the business of providing
Internet and telecommunication services to the public and serving as
gateways for accessing the defendants’ websites. These ISPs have been
impleaded as parties to the present suit to block and disable the access of the
defendants’ websites.
9. Defendant no.12 [Department of Telecommunications] and defendant
no.13 [Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology] are government
bodies that have been impleaded for the limited purpose of issuing notices to
the ISPs, directing them to block access to the defendants’ websites.
th
10. After the release of the third season of the plaintiff’s series on 10
May 2024, the plaintiff was surprised to discover a news article on the
website www.filmlybeat.com, reporting that the plaintiff’s show/ series
‘UNDEKHI’ had been illegally leaked on multiple websites for free
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 418/2024 Page 3 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:26.03.2025
17:10:41
download, within hours of its official release.
11. Subsequently, the plaintiff’s anti-piracy team conducted an
investigation, which revealed that defendants no.1 and 2 are operating
websites that unlawfully provide the plaintiff’s series for free download.
These websites do not disclose any contact details or offer a formal
takedown mechanism for infringing content, however, they indicate that
infringing links may be removed upon notification via email.
12. To safeguard its copyright, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the
operators of defendants no.1 and 2, demanding that they cease and desist
from engaging in infringing activities and immediately remove the
plaintiff’s series from their platforms. However, the defendants neither
responded to the legal notices nor took any action to remove the infringing
content.
13. Hence the present suit was filed.
P ROCEEDINGS IN THE S UIT
14. After filing the present suit, the plaintiff identified additional mirror,
redirect, and alphanumeric variations of defendant no.2’s website, along
with other infringing websites that continue to exploit the plaintiff’s series.
th
15. The present suit came before this court for the first time on 20 May
2024 wherein the Court allowed the application for the impleadment of
defendants no.14 to 19 and granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in
favour of the plaintiff. Additionally, defendants no. 3 to 11 were directed to
block the websites of defendants no. 1, 2, 14 to 19 and defendants no.12 and
13 were directed to issue necessary directions for blocking the said websites.
th
16. In the order passed by the Joint Registrar on 4 October 2024, it was
noted that despite being served defendants no. 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, and 13 did
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 418/2024 Page 4 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:26.03.2025
17:10:41
not enter an appearance and defendants no. 6, 8, 10, and 11 remained
unserved. Further, the plaintiff was directed to file an affidavit of service in
respect of defendants no. 1, 2, and 14 to 19.
17. Since none entered appearance on behalf of defendants no.3, 4, 5, 7,
rd
9, 12 and 13, vide order dated 23 October 2024, the aforesaid defendants
were proceeded against ex parte .
th
18. On 28 November 2024, the Joint Registrar closed the rights of all the
defendants to file their written statement.
th
19. On 17 March 2025, the present application was filed on behalf of the
plaintiff seeking summary judgment in the present suit.
20. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that this is a fit case where a
Summary Judgment in terms of Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) as applicable to commercial disputes of a specified
value, read with Rule 27 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property
Rights Division Rules, 2022, deserves to be passed in favour of the plaintiff
and against the defendant.
21. Since defendants no.3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12 and 13 have already been
proceeded against ex parte and the contesting defendants no. 1, 2, and 14 to
19 are infringing websites/URLs that did not enter an appearance, I do not
find it necessary to issue fresh notices before deciding the present
application under Order XIII-A, CPC seeking summary judgment.
NALYSIS AND INDINGS
A F
22. I have heard the submissions of the counsel for the plaintiff and
perused the material on record.
23. The plaint has been duly verified and is also supported by the affidavit
of the plaintiff’s authorised signatory. In view of the fact that no written
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 418/2024 Page 5 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:26.03.2025
17:10:41
statement has been filed on their behalf, all the averments made in the plaint
are deemed to have been admitted. Further, since no affidavit of admission/
denial has been filed on behalf of the aforesaid defendants in respect of the
documents filed with the plaint, the same are deemed to have been admitted
in terms of Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. The
documentary evidence, which is already on record, is ex-facie proof of the
defendants’ acts of infringement.
24. Therefore, I am of the opinion that no purpose would be served by
directing the plaintiff to lead ex-parte evidence by filing an affidavit of
examination-in-chief and the plaintiff is entitled to a summary judgment.
25. Based on the averments made in the plaint and material on record, the
plaintiff has been able to show that the plaintiff is the rightful owner and
author of the plaintiff’s series/show ‘UNDEKHI’ and holds exclusive rights
over its distribution.
26. In UTV Software Communications Ltd. & Ors . v. 1337X.TO and
1
Ors , a coordinate bench of this court laid down factors to categorise a
website as a rogue website. The Court highlighted that while determining a
website as a rogue website, key considerations shall include whether the
primary purpose of the website is to commit or facilitate copyright
infringement, along with the flagrancy of such infringement. Another
significant factor is the anonymity of the registrant, whether the registrant’s
details are concealed and registrant details are untraceable. Further, the court
has to consider factors such a website’s silence or inaction in response to
takedown notices, its role in providing directories or tools to facilitate
1
2019 SCC OnLine Del 8002
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 418/2024 Page 6 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:26.03.2025
17:10:41
infringement, and a general disregard for copyright laws. The court has to
also consider whether the website has been subject to disabling orders in
other jurisdictions for copyright violations, whether the website contains
guides to circumvent legal restrictions, and the volume of traffic or
frequency of access. Additionally, the court can take any other relevant
factor that points to systemic copyright abuse, while determining the rogue
status of the website.
27. The plaintiff has also placed on record the summary judgment dated
th
10 October 2022 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in CS
(COMM) 369/2019 titled ‘ Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc v.
http.//tamilrockers.ws & Ors ’ wherein the coordinate bench of this court
had declared the websites run by the defendants herein as well as their
alphanumeric versions as ‘rogue websites’ and ordered them to be blocked.
28. A perusal of the plaint would show that the defendants are websites
that are making the plaintiff’s series/show available to the public without
procuring any valid license or authorization from the plaintiff. These
defendants’ websites unlawfully provide access to infringing content free of
charge, without requiring users to register. The availability of such content is
monetized through advertisements displayed on these platforms.
29. It is clear from the aforesaid analysis that the defendants are rogue
websites that are actively and knowingly creating, developing, distributing
and making available the plaintiff’s show/series on their websites with the
common object of exploiting the copyright-protected works of the plaintiff.
Despite being blocked previously by this court, the defendants have again
emerged and registered new domain names, which are mirror / alphanumeric
versions of the erstwhile websites that were directed to be blocked and taken
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 418/2024 Page 7 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:26.03.2025
17:10:41
down, to facilitate copyright infringement.
30. The defendants’ activities have caused irreparable harm to the
plaintiffs, as these rogue websites not only violate and infringe the
copyrights of the plaintiff in its series/show but also erode and dilute the
value of the exclusive rights by taking away significant revenues from the
plaintiff.
31. In UTV Software (supra), the court also recognized the challenge of
website blocking due to the continuous emergence of mirror, redirect, and
alphanumeric variations of infringing websites. Relying on the judgment of
the Singapore High Court in Disney Enterprise v. Ml Ltd [(2018) SGHC
206], this court upheld the concept of ‘Dynamic Injunction’, which allows
the plaintiff to approach the court for the blocking of new domain names,
URLs, or IP addresses that provide access to the same infringing content,
without requiring the plaintiff to repeatedly approach the Court for each new
variation.
32. Applying the principle in Disney Enterprise (supra) , this court in
UTV Software (supra), allowed the plaintiff to file an application for
impleadment of new rogue/mirror websites as defendants and delegated the
power of this Court to the Joint Registrar to pass blocking orders upon being
satisfied that the newly impleaded websites are indeed mirrors or redirects of
the original injuncted rogue websites.
33. As discussed above, in the present case, defendants no. 1, 2, and 14 to
19 are websites engaged in piracy by illegally making the plaintiff’s
copyrighted content available for free download and streaming. Following
the directions given in UTV Software (supra), a dynamic injunction is
necessary to be passed in the present case so as to prevent their continued
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 418/2024 Page 8 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:26.03.2025
17:10:41
infringement through new domain names.
34. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to reliefs claimed in the plaint.
R ELIEF
35. In view of the foregoing analysis, the present suit is decreed in favour
of the plaintiff and against the defendants no.1, 2, and 14 to 19 in terms of
the prayer clause contained in paragraphs no.50 (a) and (b) of the plaint.
36. In respect of relief claimed in the prayer clauses contained in
paragraphs no. 56 (c) and (d), the plaintiff is permitted to implead the
mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites which provide access to the websites
of defendants no.1,2, and 14 to 19 by filing an appropriate application under
Order I Rule 10 CPC, supported by affidavits and evidence as directed in
UTV Software (supra). Any website(s) impleaded as a result of such
application will be subject to the same decree.
37. In respect of relief claimed in prayer clauses contained in paragraphs
no. 56 (f), a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants
no.12 [DoT] and defendant no.13 [MEITY] directing the DoT and MEITY
to issue a notification calling upon the various ISPs and TSPs to block
access to the defendants’ no.1,2, and 14 to 19 websites.
38. Counsel for the plaintiff does not press for remaining reliefs in the
plaint.
39. Let the decree sheet be drawn up.
40. All pending applications stand disposed of.
th
41. The date of 05 August, 2025 stands cancelled.
AMIT BANSAL, J
MARCH 19, 2025/ Vivek/-
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 418/2024 Page 9 of 9
Digitally Signed
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:26.03.2025
17:10:41