Case Law Details
Culver Max Entertainment Private Limited Vs F1.mylivecricket.live and Ors (Delhi High Court)
Defendants No. 1 to 39 are said to be rogue infringing websites engaged in the business of uploading pirated and unlicensed content. Among the various illegal acts done by them is the live streaming of various sporting events. Unauthorized communication/ broadcast to public of the Sporting Event will result in losses to the Plaintiff and to the Government in terms of revenue collected through taxes – which is not recovered /recoverable from these pirated websites. Defendants No. 40 to 57 are distribution platform operators (“DPO”), including MSOs and LCOs respectively, which are governed by the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. It is stated that there are several such operators all over the country who are engaged in unauthorised and unlicenced reproduction and broadcast on the local channels and through other means, of various copyrighted content, including but not limited to the matches of the said Sporting Event through the cable network. Defendants No. 58 to 89 are ISPs, who are engaged in the business of providing basic telephony, mobile services and broadband network all over the world and are covered under the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Copyright Act, 1957, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 and Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. It is pleaded that in the absence of any specific order from this court, the Plaintiff’s objective of protecting its copyright in the said matches cannot be obtained. Defendants No. 90 and 91 are Union of India and Department of Telecommunications respectively, and have been impleaded as proforma parties for the purpose of implementation of order of this Court against the infringing parties and for ensuring compliance. Defendant No. 92 is an unknown person who the Plaintiff apprehends will infringe its copyright qua broadcast and digital transmission rights for the said Sporting Event. The said “Ashok Kumar” Defendant has been impleaded with a view to facilitate the service of summons upon, and the extension of the injunction to parties who violate the Plaintiff’s rights. It is pleaded that owing to the special nature of broadcasting and digital transmission rights in the Sporting Event, it is not possible to specifically identify all such Defendants at this stage.
In view of the submissions made in the plaint, application and supporting affidavits and documents, the fact that Plaintiff has exclusive media rights from ECB, as detailed hereinbefore, a prima facie case is made out in favour of the Plaintiff to grant protection against the illegal transmission, broadcasting, communication, telecast and unauthorised distribution of any event, match, footage, clip, audio-video, audio only of the Sporting Event scheduled to be held from 1st July, 2022 to 17th July, 2022. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff and it is likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury, in case an injunction is not granted in its favour.
In light of the above, the following interim directions to protect the interest of the Plaintiff are issued:
(i) Defendants No. 1 to 39 are restrained from, in any manner, hosting, streamlining, reproducing, distributing, making available to the public and/or communicating to the public or facilitating the same on their websites through the internet in any manner whatsoever, any cinematograph work, content, programme and show or event in which the Plaintiff has copyright.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
