CS(OS) 2335/2013, I.As. 19123/2013, 19124/2013 and 19421/2013
  (under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC)
  ..... Plaintiff
  Through: Mr.Jayant K. Mehta with Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Advs.
  ..... Defendant
  Through: Ms Pratibha M. Singh with Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee and Mr. Kapil
  Midha, Advs. for defendant No. 8.
  Mr. Ashok Mathur, Adv. with Mr. V.M. Srivastava, Adv. for D-7.
   O R D E R
  I.A. 19421/2013 (under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC)
  This is filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment in the plaint.
  Heard the counsel for the plaintiff. The suit being at the initial
  stage and the sought amendments being relevant and necessary and
  essentially made only for clarification, are allowed. The application
  stands disposed of. Amended plaint is taken on record.
  IA 19124/2013 (exemption)
  Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
  IA stands disposed of.
  CS (OS) 2335/2013 and IA 19123/2013 (under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC)
  Let summons in the suit and notice in the IA be issued to all the
  defendants, on plaintiff taking steps/filing PF/RC within a week,
  returnable on 22nd April 2014.
  Plaintiff is the sole and exclusive owner of all intellectual
  property rights in the film ?Dhoom 3?, which is stated to be released on
  December 20, 2013. The defendants are said to be, inter alia,
  persons/agencies engaged in communication, broadcasting and entertainment
  industries in that:
  a) Defendant nos. 1 to 5 and 13 to 18 are persons/entities engaged in the
  cable television industry. Infringing/pirated copies of the said film are
  telecast/transmitted/communicated through the medium of these defendants.
  b) Defendant nos. 6 to 12 are ISPs i.e. Internet Service Providers and
  Network Service Providers, who are engaged in telecommunication industry.
  c) Defendant no. 19 is a website, which is already engaged in infringing
  the copyright of the plaintiff in the film ?Dhoom 3? by allowing any
  person to download unlicensed and unauthorised copies of the songs of the
  said film.
  d) Defendant nos. 20 to 28 are persons who are habitual infringers and
  indulge in piracy as a part of their business. They operate under various
  assumed identities in order to avoid the process of law. For convenience
  of reference, the plaintiff has named them ?Ashok Kumar?, and is seeking
  an injunction in the nature of a ?John Doe Order? against these
  The plaintiff?s case is that contents of its film ?Dhoom 3?, are being copied/telecast/distributed/transmitted/communicated inter alia
  through the medium of cable networks as well as internet websites. And
  that the plaintiff has not authorized any of the defendants to copy or
  reproduce or communicate or duplicate or display or telecast or upload or
  download the film ?Dhoom 3?. And that the present suit is necessitated
  for the reason that the plaintiff has experienced large scale violations
  of its intellectual property rights in some of its recent films.
  The plaintiff submits that it has reliable information that the
  defendant nos. 13 to 17 as well as defendant nos. 20 to 28, whose
  identities are unknown to the plaintiff may inter alia use the medium and
  agency of defendant nos. 1 to 12 and 18 to carry out unauthorised
  distribution or transmission of the film through their networks.
  Similarly, defendants no. 20 to 28, who are unknown persons, who make
  poor copies of the film when it being screened, upload the infringing
  contents on websites such as defendant no. 19, which are accessible over
  the internet through the aegis of the ISPs and Network Service Providers
  such as defendants no. 6 to 12, who make these websites accessible to
  millions of users around the globe.
  The plaintiff submits that the only effective remedy available to
  it, is to seek an injunction against the known defendants and an
  injunction in the nature of a ?John Doe Order? for the unknown defendants
  in order to ensure that its intellectual property rights are not
  The plaintiff has placed reliance upon its earlier suits filed
  before this Court, such as CS(OS) No. 2141/2011 and CS(OS) No. 3194/2012,
  in which this injunction was granted against the known and unknown
  defendants. Reliance is also placed on the orders of this Court in CS(OS)
  No. 1724/2011, CS(OS) No. 821/2011 and CS(OS) No. 384/2011, where similar
  injunctions were granted.
  Plaintiff also contends that the provisions of the Information
  Technology Act, 2000 mandates ISPs as well as Network Service Providers,
  which are included within the definition of an ?intermediary?. The
  licenses granted to ISPs and telecom service providers by the Department
  of Communication also oblige the licensees to ensure that intellectual
  property rights are not infringed by or through their networks. And that
  defendant nos. 1 to 12 and 18 are, thus, additionally mandated to ensure
  that once they are informed of nay infringing activity being carried out
  utilizing their medium and agency, they take immediate steps to ensure
  that such medium and agency is not used by any person for unauthorized
  copying, communication, duplication, reproduction, exhibition or
  distribution of the plaintiff?s film.
  The learned counsel appearing for defendant no. 8 accepts notice
  and has fairly conceded that on being informed by the plaintiff in
  writing about the particulars of websites hosting infringing content, it
  shall, within 48 hours, block such URLs. Similarly, defendants no. 6, 7
  and 9 to 12 are also directed to block URLs upon receiving particulars of
  the infringing websites from the plaintiff.
  An ad interim ex parte injunction is granted against defendants and
  other unnamed and undisclosed persons, their partners or proprietors as
  the case may be, their officers, servants, agents and representatives,
  franchisees, head-ends and all other in capacity of principal and agent acting for or on behalf, thereby restraining them from communicating or
  making available or distributing, or duplicating, or displaying, or
  releasing, or showing, or uploading, or downloading, or exhibiting, or
  playing, and/or defraying the movie ?Dhoom 3? in any manner without a
  proper license from the plaintiff, or in any other manner which would
  violate/infringe the plaintiff?s copyright in the said film, through
  mediums such as CD, DVD, Blue-Ray Disc, VCD, Cable TV, DTH, Internet
  services, MMS Clips, Tapes, or in any other manner.
  Let notice be issued to defendants No. 6, 7, 9 to 12 on plaintiff
  taking steps/filing PF/RC within a week, returnable on 22nd April 2014.
  Compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC be made by the plaintiff within a
  DECEMBER 02, 2013
  $ 11