Delhi High Court
Star India Pvt Ltd & Anr. vs Afilmywap.Top & Ors. on 17 January, 2022
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 17.01.2022
+ CS(COMM) 485/2020 & I.A. 10011/2020
STAR INDIA PVT LTD & ANR. .... Plaintiffs
Through Mr.Vivek Ayyagari, Adv.
versus
AFILMYWAP.TOP & ORS. .... Defendants
Through Mr.Alipak Banerjee, Adv. for
defendant No.53
Mr. Abhay Prakash Sahay, Mr.
Swayamprabha Saraswati and Mr.
Vivek Singh, Advs. for D-63 & 64
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. The plaintiffs have filed the instant suit for injunction and damages on
the ground that their exclusive rights to the original content in the
cinematograph film "Laxmii" (formerly known as Laxmi Bomb) are likely
to be violated.
2. According to the plaintiffs, release of the film "Laxmii" has been
postponed multiple times due to Covid-19 pandemic in India and was finally
released on 9th November 2020 on Disney+ Hotstar. Film has been co-
produced by the plaintiffs, Cape of Good Films LLP (defendant No.51),
Tusshar Entertainment House and Shabinaa Entertainment. However, the
Intellectual Property Rights in the film are jointly held only by the plaintiffs
and defendant No.51. Consequently, defendant No.51 and plaintiffs have the
exclusive rights as enumerated under Section 14( d) of the Copyright Act,
1957Act.
3. He has further submitted that the rogue websites, which are arrayed as
defendant Nos.1 to 50, have, in the past, infringed their statutory rights i.e.
copyrights in the cinematograph films produced on earlier occasions. The
past infringements have been tabulated by the plaintiffs at page 177 of the
plaintiffs' documents folder. The various 'exclusive rights' that, inter alia,
would be deemed to have been infringed/violated by the defendant Nos.1 to
50 are:
"a. The right of making a copy of the Film including the
storing of it in any medium by electronic or other means;
b. The right of communicating the Film to the public."
Therefore, any hosting, streaming, reproducing, distributing, making
available to the public, and/or communicating to the public of the film, or
facilitating the same, without authorisation of the plaintiffs, by any means on
any platform including internet and mobile would be illegal and amount to
violation of the plaintiffs' copyright protected under the Act.
4. This Court was informed that defendant Nos.52 and 53 are the domain
name registrars [in short "DNRs"] while defendant nos. 54 to 62 are the
Internet Service Providers [in short "ISPs"] and that the Department of
Telecommunication [in short "DOT"] and the Ministry of Electronics and
Information Technology [in short "MEITY"] have also been arrayed as
defendant Nos.63 and 64 respectively. It is to be noted, defendant no. 65 is
Mr. Ashok Kumar i.e. the John Doe defendant(s).
5. Learned counsel for defendant No.53 as well as learned counsel for
defendant Nos.63 and 64 have appeared and submitted that they have
complied with the directions passed by this Court vide order dated
03.11.2020. They have further submitted that defendant Nos. 53, 63 and 64
have no objection to the decree of permanent injunction being passed against
them, subject to the plaintiffs giving up the claim for damages and costs.
Learned counsel for defendant No.53 further submitted that he has no
objection if prayer clause (i), (iii) and (iv) are allowed and prayer clause ( ii)
is allowed to the extent as under:
"ii. Pass an order and decree directing the Defendant
No. 52 and 53, its directors, partners, proprietors,
officers, affiliates, servants, employees, and all others in
capacity of principal or agent acting for and, on its
behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under it, to
suspend the domain name registration of domain names
of Defendants No. 1 by Defendant No. 52 (Public
Domain Registrar) and Defendants No. 2 by Defendant
No. 53 (GoDaddy) and as already identified by the
Plaintiffs in the instant suit in Memo of Parties."
6. None has appeared on behalf of remaining defendants.
7. In response to the aforesaid, learned counsel for plaintiffs on
instructions had submitted that plaintiffs shall not press for damages and
costs against defendants and further prays that prayer clause (i) to (iv)
(clause (ii) to the extent as prayed by learned counsel for defendant No.53)
be allowed. However, submitted that plaintiffs shall invite a judgment on
this aspect.
8. Today, learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiffs has submitted
that in view of concession put forth by counsel representing defendant
Nos.53, 63 and 64, the present suit be decreed in terms of Prayer Clause (i)
to (iv) (clause ii to the extent as prayed by learned counsel for defendant
No.53) and plaintiffs give up their claims with regard to prayers mentioned
prayer clause from (v) to (viii).
9. The aforesaid submission advanced by learned counsel for plaintiffs is
consented to by learned counsel for defendant Nos.53, 63 and 64.
10. In view of the above, the present suit is decreed in terms of Prayer
Clause mentioned in prayer clause (i), (iii) and (iv) of present suit are
allowed and prayer clause ii of present is allowed to the extent as under
which shall form part of the decree:
"(ii.) Pass an order and decree directing the Defendant
No. 52 and 53, its directors, partners, proprietors,
officers, affiliates, servants, employees, and all others in
capacity of principal or agent acting for and, on its
behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under it, to
suspend the domain name registration of domain names
of Defendants No. 1 by Defendant No. 52 (Public
Domain Registrar) and Defendants No. 2 by Defendant
No. 53 (GoDaddy) and as already identified by the
Plaintiffs in the instant suit in Memo of Parties."
11. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
12. The present suit and pending application, if any, are accordingly
disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
JANUARY 17, 2022
rk
