FACTS:

The plaintiff is engaged in film production and distribution in India (Star India Pvt Ltd.), and for that reason, he holds exclusive licenses for several films. One such film, the distribution of that is into consideration is ‘Mission Mangal’. 80 defendants were impleaded. Defendant Nos. 1-67 are websites that are believed to be infringing plaintiff’s copyright by distributing the film without authorization, defendant No. 68 & 69 are the registrar of 7 defendant websites, defendant No. 70-78 are Internet Service providers (ISPs), and the defendant No. 79 & 80 are Government of the Indians departments and are the distributors that do not have authorization.

The problem arose when the plaintiff found that their film ‘Mission Mangal’ was available for distribution without permission on several Internet platforms. A lot of defendant websites have been displaying and uploading copies of the film to the public. The defendant moved the court subsequently alleging that their exclusive rights were specifically violated under Section 14 of the Copyright Act,1957.

The plaintiff’s most important point, however, is that the websites of the defendant are ‘rogue websites’ mostly involved in distributing infringing copies on the Internet.

ISSUES RAISED:- 

1. Whether the rights which are claimed by the plaintiff are or are not covered under the Copyright Act, 1957, or putting it differently, can they arise or exist independently of the Copyright Act, 1957?
2. Whether the Registrant’s information is obscured and the Registrant or the user has no personal or traceable data.?
3. Whether a website has no details or inactions following receipt of copyright violation notices?
4. If the website makes folders, indexes, or categories accessible or includes a way of infringing or facilitating copyright?
5. Whether copyright disrespect is commonly demonstrated by the owner or online site operator?

LAW APPLICABLE:

Section 14 of The Copyrights Act,1957 states the meaning of “Copyright” in the eyes of law.

Section 51 of The Copyrights Act,1957 :

When copyright is infringed.—Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed

(a.)when any person, without a license granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a license so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act

(b.)when any person—

(i) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire, or

(ii) distributes either for trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, or

(iii) by way of trade exhibits in public, or

(iv) imports 2[***] into India, 2[***] into India,” any infringing copies of the work: 3[Provided that nothing in sub-clause (iv) shall apply to the import of one copy of any work, for the private and domestic use of the importer.]

Explanation.—For this section, the reproduction of a literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work in the form of a cinematograph film shall be deemed to be an “infringing copy”.

JUDGEMENT:

The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, which stated that they had successfully proven that the defendant’s websites were primarily rogue websites that dealt with copies of copyright work and distributed them to the public. It was concluded that the questionable existence of the status of the website registrant along with the nature of the activities also further confirms the finding that the websites of the defendant fell within the reach of the domain of the rogue websites.

In failure to obey legal notices, the court also firmly disregarded the casual existence of the defendant’s websites, and displayed a flagrant disregard and ignorance of the plaintiff’s intellectual property rights. The plaintiff also has the right to the real costs of the action, including the charge for lawyers and the Court fee. The plaintiff will file an affidavit of the actual costs within two weeks.