Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Moviestrunk.com & Ors. [CS(COMM) 408/2019]

Introduction

The Delhi High Court entertained a petition of copyright infringement under Sections 14 and 51 of the Copyright Act 1957. The Court examined the submissions made by the parties and held the defendants liable for the infringement.

Case Facts of Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Moviestrunk.com & Ors.

In the present suit, the plaintiff has accused the defendant of communicating infringing copies of the film (“Mission Mangal”) to the public for viewing and/or download without the plaintiff’s authorization. This has affected the plaintiff’s business and constitutes an infringement of the exclusive rights conferred upon it by virtue of Sections 14 and 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (“the Act”).

The plaintiff is engaged in the business of production and distribution of films in India and holds exclusive licences for various films. The plaintiff and defendant no.68-Cape of Good Films LLP jointly hold the IPRs of Mission Mangal under the Act. The plaintiff has filed a suit against 67 named defendant websites which have been alleged to be involved in the business of providing illegal content to the public for free, inter alia, through hosting, streaming, and broadcasting.

According to the plaintiff’s version, the defendant websites (“defendant Nos. 1 to 67”) are rogue websites as per the judgement of UTV Software Communication Ltd. & Ors. 1337x.to & Ors.^[1], as their principal activity pertains to infringement of copyrights by reproduction, publication, and communication of infringing material through the internet; being of anonymous nature, their identification is difficult. The supporting evidence was placed by the plaintiff to prove the claim of ‘rogue websites’.

It is to be noted that a third-party investigation conducted by the plaintiff revealed that large-scale copyright infringement of the plaintiff’s content and third-party content was being conducted on the defendant-websites.

The plaintiff sent notices to the defendant’s websites to remove the infringing content from their pages, but no response has been received. Consequently, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant’s websites and suspend the domain names of defendants nos. 1 to 69 in pursuance of the prevention of the violation of the plaintiff’s exclusive rights.

Issues in Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Moviestrunk.com & Ors.

1. Whether or not the defendant websites (i.e., 1 to 67) can be termed as ‘rogue websites’?
2. Whether or not an infringement of copyright has occurred by the defendant’s websites?

Arguments

The Learned Counsel for the plaintiff noted that despite the service of summons, the principal defendants have not appeared to contest the suit, relying on Satya Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. v. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd.^[2] submitted that in an uncontested suit, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to lead evidence and summary disposal of the suit on the basis of plaint’s content supported by the statement of truth and declaration under the Commercial Courts Act 2015 are sufficient.

The plaintiff also highlighted the illustrative factors laid down by UTV Software Communication Ltd.^[3] to determine whether a particular website is a rogue website or not, they are:-

“59. a. Whether the primary purpose of the website is to  commit or facilitate copyright infringement;

1. the flagrancy of the infringement, or the flagrancy of the facilitation of the infringement;
2. Whether the detail of the registrant is masked and no personal or traceable detail is available either of the Registrant or of the user.
3. Whether there is silence or inaction by such websites after receipt of take-down notices pertaining to copyright infringement.
4. Whether the online location makes available or contains directories, indexes or categories of the means to infringe or facilitate an infringement of, copyright;
5. Whether the owner or operator of the online location demonstrates a disregard for copyright generally;
6. Whether access to the online location has been disabled by orders from any court of another country or territory on the ground of or related to copyright infringement;
7. whether the website contains guides or instructions to circumvent measures, or any order of any court, that disables access to the website on the ground of or related to copyright infringement; and i. the volume of traffic at or frequency of access to the website;
8. Any other relevant matter.”

Further, the Learned Counsel attached the documentary evidence in respect of the contention of ‘rogue websites’

Judgement in Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Moviestrunk.com & Ors.

Upon scrutiny of the evidence placed on record, electronic records of proof against defendant Nos.1 to 67, assisted by the investigators’ affidavit indicating that the plaintiff’s content was available on the defendant websites Nos.1 to 67, access to which was being provided illegally and without the plaintiff’s licence, the Hon’ble Court pronounced that the plaintiff has succeeded in showing that the defendant Nos.1 to 67 were involved in the facilitation of copyright infringement of the plaintiff and hence fall under the purview of ‘rogue websites’. Further, the casualty on the defendant’s part (i.e., 1 to 67) to respond to notices or to appear for summons entitles the plaintiff to the decree and the actual costs of the suit.

Present Status of the Judgement

The judgement has not been overruled; hence it stands applicable until overruled by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

This judgement plays an important role in reiterating the concept of rogue websites. The regulations pertaining to copyright infringement need to be reinforced to prevent more problems as the surge of internet platforms grows tremendously.

Endnotes

^[1] 2019 (78) PTC 375 (Del) [CS(COMM) 724/2017 and connected matters, decided on 10.04.2019]

^[2] 2013 (54) PTC 419 (Del) [CS(OS)1213/2011, decided on 07.02.2013]

^[3] Supra note 1.

This article has been submitted by  Amri Gupta, a student of ICFAI Law School, IFHE Hyderabad.