28 Jan The appellants had succeeded in showing that respondents were primarily engaged in committing and facilitating copyright infringement

Star India Pvt. Ltd. V/S Moviestrunk.com and Ors.

The present suit is filed by the appellant’s Star India Pvt. Ltd., in the Honourable High Court of Delhi before Honourable Justice Prateek Jalan seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from infringing the appellant’s exclusive rights and copyrights. [CS (COMM) 408/2019, I.A. 10601/2019 and I.A. 13684/2019, Decided On: 17.02.2020]

The appellants in the present suit are engaged in the business of production and distribution of films in India, and holds exclusive licenses in respect of various films. The present suit, filed by the appellants concerns the cinematograph film “Mission Mangal”, slated to be released on 15.08.2019, in over 2500 screens in India. The appellants state that they and Cape of Good Films LLP jointly hold the intellectual property rights in the film under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957.

The appellants have filed the present suit against 67 named respondents – websites, which according to the appellants, are believed to be engaged in the business of transmitting third party content and information through the internet, and thus providing illegal content inter alia through hosting, streaming and broadcasting to the public for free.

In the present suit the appellants have complained regarding communication of infringing copies of the film to the public, and the same being made available for viewing and/or download without the authorization of the appellants, which would have a direct impact on the appellant’s business and which, according to the appellants constitutes an infringement of the exclusive rights conferred upon them by virtue of Sections 14 and 51 of the Copyright Act.

According to the appellants the respondents are “rogue websites” and their principal activity involves reproduction, publication and communication of infringing material through the internet. According to the appellants, the respondent-websites facilitate the infringement of the appellant’s copyright, and the anonymous nature of these websites makes it impossible to identify them effectively. The appellants also state that they conducted an investigation through a third-party investigator, and an affidavit dated 29.07.2019 has been filed in that regard, wherein it has been reported that large scale copyright infringement of the appellant’s content, as well as third-party content, has been ongoing on the respondents – websites. The appellants state that notices were sent to the respondents – websites to take down infringing content from their pages; however, responses to the same were not received.

Hence the appellants have filed the present suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from in any manner communicating, hosting, streaming, and/or making available for viewing and downloading, without authorization, on their websites or other platforms, through the internet in any manner whatsoever, the appellant’s film and content related thereto, so as to infringe the appellant’s exclusive rights and copyrights.

In view of the above all of the respondents were served through email but despite service of summons, the respondents neither entered appearance nor filled any written statements and hence were set ex-parte.

The appellants have placed on record in a USB drive, several screenshots from the respondents’ websites, and screenshots of the appellant’s content actually being downloaded/streamed/played from the respondents’ websites to show that the respondents were indulging in large scale infringement of the appellant’s copyright. The appellants have also placed on record the details of each of the respondents, as well as notices sent to the respondent – websites by the investigation firm.

Thus in view of the above the court in the present suit asserted that the appellants had succeeded in showing that respondents were primarily engaged in committing and facilitating copyright infringement. Also, the failure of the said respondents to comply with the notices issued on behalf of the appellants, or to enter appearance pursuant to the summons in this suit, displayed a casual indifference to the intellectual property rights of the appellants. Hence according to the court, the appellants were entitled to a decree against respondents. The appellants were also entitled to actual costs of the suit, including court fees and counsel’s fees.

Acts/Rules/Orders: Copyright Act, 1957 – Section 14, Copyright Act, 1957 – Section 51