Star India Private Limited & Anr. vs JioLive.tv & Ors.

AMIT BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

The present suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from illegal and unauthorised dissemination, and broadcast of matches or parts of the ICC Men’s Cricket World Cup 2023 (hereinafter referred ‘World Cup 2023’), damages, rendition of accounts and other ancillary reliefs.

The Plaintiffs’ case is that the Plaintiff No.1 operates 77 TV Channels in eight languages, including general entertainment and sporting channels. The Plaintiffs own media rights in respect of events relating to cricket, football, badminton, tennis, hockey, domestic and international cricket matches organized by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the International Cricket Council (ICC).

Plaintiff No.2 is an affiliate company of Plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff No.2 owns and operates the online video streaming platform/website ‘www.hotstar.com’, and the mobile application ‘Disney+ Hotstar’. On the aforesaid platforms, the Plaintiff No.2 streams various events in respect of which Plaintiff No.1 has the exclusive digital rights (Internet and Mobile).

The World Cup 2023 was held from 5^th October, 2023 to 19^th November, 2023 in India and included a total of 48 one-day international matches (ODI). The Plaintiffs acquired exclusive global media rights including television rights and digital rights (Internet and Mobile) for various ICC events including the ICC World Cup 2023 for a period of eight years from 2015 to 2023 vide agreement dated 20^th November, 2014 between ICC and Plaintiff No.1. The existence of these rights in favour of the Plaintiffs has been confirmed by ICC Business Corporation FZ LLC via letter dated 16^th May, 2019. A copy of the said letter has been placed on record by the Plaintiffs.

The case of the Plaintiffs is that in view of the exclusive rights which the Plaintiffs have acquired from ICC, they enjoy broadcast reproduction rights which are contemplated and confirmed in terms of Section 37 of the Copyright Act, 1957. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that they have, in the past, come across almost all major sporting events being illegally communicated and disseminated on the internet.

Defendant Nos.1 to 9 are various rogue websites which are stated to be primarily hosting illegal and pirated content. Defendant Nos.10 to 17 are DNRs of the domain names where the said rogue websites are being hosted. Defendant Nos. 18 to 26 are various internet service providers and Defendant Nos.27 and 28 are DoT and MeitY.

On the first date of hearing i.e., 27^th September 2023, this Court while placing reliance on Universal City Studios LLC v. Dotmovies.baby, 2023:DHC:5842 granted a ‘Dynamic+ Injunction’ in favour of the Plaintiffs. The operative directions passed vis-à-vis the Defendants No.1 to 28 are set out hereinafter:

Subsequently, vide order dated 21^st December, 2023, in light of the aforesaid Dynamic Injunction, the Predecessor Bench blocked approximately 406 rogue websites illegally streaming the World Cup 2023 matches.

During the course of the suit, the Plaintiffs identified 396 additional rogue websites which indulged in similar illegal and infringing activities as the original Defendants. Therefore, the Plaintiffs moved I.A. 36270/2024 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking impleadment of the aforesaid rogue websites as proposed Defendants No.30 to 425.

Via order dated 13^th August 2024, passed by the learned Joint Registrar, I.A. 36270/2024 came to be allowed and the proposed Defendants No.30 to 425 were impleaded as Defendants in the present suit. It was further directed that the interim directions passed in the order dated 27^th September, 2023 shall also operate qua the newly added defendants.

The plaintiff has filed an affidavit of service dated 8^th August 2024 in terms of which all the newly added defendants have been served the summons in the suit. Despite service, none has entered appearance on behalf of the defendants.

In regard to the rogue websites, the Plaintiff has filed eleven (11) additional affidavits dated 04.10.2023, 09.10.2023, 11.10.2023, 12.10.2023, 14.10.2023, 16.10.2023, 21.10.2023, 31.10.2023, 06.11.2023 and 28.11.2023 stating that vide various emails, they notified the ISPs, DoT and MeitY, for blocking of the additional rogue websites. [The details of the rogue websites as stated in the aforesaid affidavit are attached as ‘Annexure A’ to this order]

Defendant Nos.10 and 14 have filed their respective written statements in which they have stated that they have complied with the directions contained in order dated 27^th September, 2023. Defendant No.10 in its written statement has stated that it has locked and suspended the domain name “jiolive.tv” and has provided details of the registrants of the aforesaid domain name to the plaintiff. Defendant No.14 in its written statement has stated that it has locked and suspended the domain name of “footem7.com” including all its sub-domains and has also provided the details of registrants of the aforesaid domain name to the plaintiff.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff presses for a summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

I have heard the counsel for the Plaintiff and gone through the record of the case. In terms of Rule 27 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 (hereinafter ‘2022 Rules’), this Court is empowered to pass a summary judgment without the requirement of the parties filing a specific application in this regard. Therefore, invoking the powers given to this Court under the 2022 Rules, I proceed to pass a summary judgment in the present case.

In Satya Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. v. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd., 2013 (54) PTC 419 (Del) [CS(OS) 1213/2011, decided on 07.02.2013], a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as follows:

It is trite law that in an uncontested suit, it is not necessary to require the Plaintiffs to lead evidence, and summary disposal of the suit is permissible, on the basis of the contents of the plaint, supported by the statement of truth along with an affidavit and declaration under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Therefore, in my opinion this suit does not merit trial and the suit is capable of being decreed in terms of Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC.

Based on the averments made in the plaint and the documents placed on record, the Plaintiffs have established its rights over the broadcasting and other media rights in respect of the World Cup 2023. The aforesaid rights have been acquired by the Plaintiffs by making significant monetary investment, the Plaintiffs alone are authorized to telecast the World Cup, 2023 at its bouquet of channels as well as on its OTT platform. The aforesaid rights of the Plaintiffs are entitled for protection under Section 37 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

At this stage, it may be relevant to note that despite service of summons, except for Defendants No. 10 and 14, none of the Defendants have contested the present suit by filing a written statement.

Defendant Nos.1 to 9 and subsequently, Defendant Nos.30 to 425 are rogue websites which have indulged in piracy of the copyright content of the Plaintiff.

Since the Defendants have failed to take any requisite steps to contest the present suit, despite having suffered an ad interim injunction order, it is evident that they have no defence to put forth on merits.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are entitled to restrain the aforesaid Defendants i.e., the rogue website from disseminating and communicating to the public, the ICC World Cup 2023 matches fully or in part without an authorization license from the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the suit is decreed in the following terms:

Counsel for the Plaintiffs do not press for the reliefs as sought in prayer clauses 61(vi) and 61(vii) with respect to damages and rendition of accounts.

I am of the view that in the present facts and circumstances, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover actual costs from Defendant Nos.1 to 9 and Defendant Nos.30 to 425. Accordingly, a decree for actual costs is passed in terms of prayer clause 61(viii) of the plaint.

For the purposes of calculation of actual costs, the Plaintiffs shall file its bill of costs in terms of Rule 5 of Chapter XXIII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 within four weeks. For this purpose, the representatives of the Plaintiffs shall appear before the Joint Registrar, who shall determine the actual costs incurred by the Plaintiffs in the present litigation.

Let the decree sheet be drawn up.

All pending applications stand disposed of.

S.No . Websites Diary No.