Voluntary Dismissal of Infringement Suit Negates Statutory Bar Against Remedies for Groundless Copyright Threats

In brief

The question

Whether the Plaintiff’s use of the Subject Works in the Subject Videos constitutes copyright infringement or is protected under the doctrines of fair dealing and de minimis.

The court held

The Court allowed the application for summary judgment, holding that the Plaintiff’s videos do not infringe the Defendants' copyrights.

It also directed

It granted a declaration that the usage of the Subject Works in the Subject Videos is non-infringing and issued a permanent injunction restraining Defendants 2 to 5 from issuing groundless threats of copyright infringement against the Plaintiff regarding these videos.

The Suit was decreed in favor of the Plaintiff regarding Prayer Paragraphs 47(i) and (ii), while other claims for damages were not pressed.

01Facts

The Plaintiff, a media and broadcasting company operating "TV9 Network," uploaded 11 news videos ("Subject Videos") to YouTube between 2020 and 2023 covering events like hurricanes, floods, and global security incidents.

¶ 3.1–3.5

Defendants 2 to 5 issued copyright "Strike Notices" via YouTube’s policy, alleging the videos used their copyrighted footage ("Subject Works").

¶ 3.6

The Plaintiff claimed the usage was for news reporting, sourced partly from a licensed portal (APTN), and constituted "fair dealing."

¶ 3.29

Defendant No. 3 filed an infringement suit in a US District Court but later voluntarily dismissed it regarding the Plaintiff’s channels.

¶ 3.13, 3.17

The Defendants failed to file a written statement or appear despite multiple notices, leading the Court to proceed ex-parte.

¶ 7

The Plaintiff subsequently sought a summary judgment under Order XIIIA of the CPC.

¶ 2

02Issues

i.Whether the Plaintiff’s use of the Subject Works in the Subject Videos constitutes copyright infringement or is protected under the doctrines of fair dealing and de minimis.

¶ 8–14

ii.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration and injunction against groundless threats of legal proceedings under Section 60 of the Copyright Act.

¶ 15–32

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied Section 52(1)(a)(iii) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which exempts "fair dealing" with a work for reporting current events from infringement.

¶ 11

It relied on the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex as established in India TV Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd., holding that trivial or miniscule usage that causes no harm is not actionable.

¶ 14, 3.28

The court also applied Section 60 of the Copyright Act, which provides a remedy against groundless threats of legal proceedings, and interpreted its Proviso, which requires a defendant to "commence and prosecute" an action with due diligence to bar such a remedy.

¶ 15, 19

Reference was made to Manya Vejju v. Sapna Bhog to define "prosecute" as carrying an action to a meaningful resolution rather than a voluntary dismissal.

¶ 19–20

Finally, Order XIIIA of the CPC was applied to grant summary judgment where the defendant has no real prospect of success.

¶ 6

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 2

04Reasoning

The Court analyzed the duration of the allegedly infringing clips, noting they were brief, segmented, and embedded within larger news programs featuring original commentary and analysis.

¶ 12

Since the Defendants did not contest the Plaintiff’s claim that major portions were lawfully sourced via the APTN license, the Court deemed these facts admitted under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules.

¶ 7, 13

Applying the law to these facts, the Court found the usage fell under "fair dealing" for news reporting and the de minimis doctrine due to the lack of qualitative or quantitative harm to the Defendants.

¶ 14

On the issue of groundless threats, the Court held that the "Strike Notices" were mere warnings within an intermediary’s policy and did not constitute "prosecuting an action."

¶ 29, 31

Furthermore, Defendant No. 3’s voluntary dismissal of the US Case meant the condition in the Proviso to Section 60 was not met, as the action was not carried forward for adjudication.

¶ 22–24