|
|
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CS(OS) 2335/2013, I.As. 19123/2013, 19124/2013 and 19421/2013
(under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC)
YASH RAJ FILMS PVT LTD
..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr.Jayant K. Mehta with Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Advs.
versus
CABLE OPERATORS FEDERATION OF INDIA and ORS
..... 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.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.MEHTA
O R D E R
02.12.2013
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
defendants.
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
infringed.
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
week.
Dasti.
M.L.MEHTA, J
DECEMBER 02, 2013
kk/acm
$ 11
|
|