Delhi HC Permanently Bars 75 Film-Piracy Sites From Streaming Six Studios’ Copyrighted Content, Directs ISPs To Block Access

The plaintiffs, entertainment studios and copyright owners, sued operators of alleged rogue websites for hosting or making available their copyrighted films without authorisation.

Internet service providers (ISPs), the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), MeitY and an unknown defendant were also joined.

The Court granted an ex parte interim injunction on 12 December 2022; further websites alleged to be mirrors, redirects or variations were later impleaded, and the injunction extended to them.

No website defendant filed a written statement, and their rights to do so were closed.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment before issues were framed; they did not press their claims for damages and costs.

Order XIII-A Rules 1–4 CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, permits summary judgment after service of summons but before issues are framed, where the opposing party has no real prospect of succeeding and there is no compelling reason to record oral evidence.

Bright Enterprises Private Ltd. v. MJ Bizcraft LLP requires an appropriate application and confirms that summary judgment proceedings are adversarial.

Order VIII Rule 5(2) CPC permits judgment on pleaded facts where no pleading has been filed, subject to the Court’s discretion to require proof.

Sections 2(y), 17, 40 and 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 respectively inform the protection of cinematograph films as works, ownership of copyright, protection of certain works first published outside India, and infringement.

Under UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.to, a court may assess whether a site is a flagrantly infringing online location or rogue website by considering factors including its purpose, the flagrancy and facilitation of infringement, masked registrant details, inaction after takedown notices, infringement directories, disregard for copyright, prior blocking orders, circumvention guidance and traffic; the factors are illustrative and do not apply to intermediaries.

The Court may grant appropriate blocking directions against rogue websites and related access points.

The application was made after service of summons and before issues were framed, expressly invoked Order XIII-A and set out the relied-on material and grounds for judgment; it therefore met the procedural requirements.

The plaintiffs’ pleaded allegations concerning the original websites, and their evidence and affidavits identifying the later-added sites as related mirrors, redirects or variations, remained uncontroverted.

Applying the UTV Software factors, the Court found the websites to be rogue sites whose primary purpose was to commit or facilitate copyright infringement, and concluded that they had no real prospect of defending the infringement claim.

Given the absence of any defence and the material already on record, further evidence would merely repeat the existing case; no compelling reason required a trial.

The decree permanently restrains the website defendants and related infringing access points from infringing the plaintiffs’ copyrights, directs the ISPs to block the identified websites and related access points, directs DoT and MeitY to issue the requisite blocking notification, and directs the domain name registrars to disclose owner and contact details.

The plaintiffs were granted liberty to seek impleadment of further mirror, redirect or alphanumeric websites through an appropriate application.

The application and suit were disposed of.