,,
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit inter-alia praying for the following relief:,,
“50. In light of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:",,
i. Issue an order and decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants No.1-3 (and such other mirror/redirect/alphanumeric,,
websites discovered to provide additional means of accessing the Defendant Websites, and other domains/domain owners/website",,
operators/entities which are discovered to have been engaging in infringing the Plaintiff's exclusive rights), its owners, partners,",,
proprietors, officers, servants, employees, and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or anyone",,
claiming through, by or under it, from, in any manner hosting, streaming, 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/ show in relation to which Plaintiff has copyright.,,
ii. Issue an order and decree directing the Defendant Nos. 4-12, their directors, partners, proprietors, officers, affiliates, servants,",,
employees, and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under it, to",,
block access to the Defendants No. 1-3 website identified by the Plaintiff in the instant suit (and such other mirror/redirect/alphanumeric,,
websites discovered to provide additional means of accessing the Defendant Websites, and other domains/domain owners/website",,
operators/entities which are discovered to have been engaging in infringing the Plaintiff's exclusive rights),",,
iii. Issue an order directing the Defendant Nos. 13 and 14, to issue a notification calling upon the various internet and telecom service",,
providers registered under it to block access to the Defendants No. 1-3 websites identified by the Plaintiff in the instant suit (and such other,,
mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites discovered to provide additional means of accessing the Defendant Websites, and other",,
domains/domain owners/website operators/entities which are discovered to have been engaging in infringing the Plaintiff's exclusive rights);,,
iv. Issue an order directing the Domain Name Registrars of the Defendant Website identified by the Plaintiff in the Plaint to disclose the,,
contact details and other details about the owner of the said websites, and other such relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and",,
proper;â€,,
2. The plaintiff claims itself to be a global entertainment company under the laws of the State of Delaware, the United States of America and as being",,
engaged in the business of creation, production and distribution of motion pictures. The plaintiff has also received certain reputed awards, such as the",,
Academy Award for ‘Best Motion Picture’ for ‘Argo’ in 2012.,,
3. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the motion pictures produced by the plaintiff, being works of visual recording and which include sound",,
recordings accompanying such visual recordings, qualify as a ‘cinematograph film’ under Section 2(f) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter",,
referred to as the ‘Act’). The plaintiff claims this Court has jurisdiction by virtue of Section 13(1) read with Sections 13(2) and 5 of the Act,",,
since the plaintiff’s cinematograph films are released in India, the cinematograph films of the plaintiff would be entitled to all the rights and",,
protections granted under the provisions of the Act.,,
4. The claim of the plaintiff is premised on the allegation of illegal and unauthorised distribution, broadcasting, re-broadcasting, transmission and",,
streaming of the plaintiff’s content by the defendant nos. 1 to 3, 16 and 17 (hereinafter referred to as the “rogue websitesâ€). It is the case of",,
the plaintiff that as a result of the unauthorised transmission of their content, the rogue websites infringe the copyright of the plaintiff in the original",,
works produced by it, which have been granted protection under the provisions of the Act.",,
5. The plaintiff has impleaded various Internet Service Providers (in short, ‘ISPs’) as the defendant nos. 4 to 12 and concerned departments of",,
the Government of India as the defendant nos. 13 and 14. The ISPs and the departments have been impleaded for the limited relief of compliance with,,
any directions of this Court granted in favour of the plaintiff.,,
6. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant nos. 1 to 3, 16 and 17 are the rogue websites. The plaintiff, vide an investigation conducted by an",,
independent investigator, learnt of the extent of the infringing activity of the rogue websites, inasmuch as the rogue websites have infringed the",,
plaintiff’s copyright in the original content by streaming or hosting and/or by facilitating the use of the rogue websites, inter alia by downloading",,
and streaming the plaintiff’s original cinematograph films in which copyright vests.,,
7. It is also the case of the plaintiff that a cease-and-desist notice was served on the rogue websites calling upon them to cease from engaging in their,,
infringing activities. Despite the legal notice, the rogue websites continue to infringe the rights of the plaintiff in its original content.",,
8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff presses only for prayers (i), (ii) and (iii) of the plaint. The other reliefs as made in the plaint are not pressed.",,
9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relies upon the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of petitions dated 10.04.2019,",,
including UTV Software Communication Ltd. & Ors. v. 1337X.to & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8002, which deal with the determination of rogue",,
websites.,,
10. The plaintiff thereafter filed I.A. 6470 of 2022 under Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, ‘CPC’), as applicable to",,
commercial disputes, seeking a summary judgment.",,
11. Vide order of this Court dated 28.04.2022, notice was issued in the present application. After notice was duly served on the defendants, the",,
plaintiff has filed its affidavits of service on 16.05.2022 and 31.05.2022.,,
12. Despite having been duly served, the defendants have neither filed replies nor their written statement in the present suit contesting the averments",,
made in the plaint. Therefore, service and pleadings are deemed as complete in the present application.",,
13. The grounds for filing the present application, as enumerated by the plaintiff in the same, are as follows:",,
a. That all the defendants have been duly served by the plaintiff, however, only the defendant nos. 9, 11, 13 and 14 have entered appearance before",,
this Hon’ble Court.,,
b. That the defendant nos. 1 to 3, 16 and 17 are the rogue websites that are illegally streaming the plaintiff’s content on their websites and even",,
after being duly served by the plaintiff, have decided not to contest the present suit.",,
c. That the defendants have no real prospect of successfully defending the claim of copyright infringement under Section 51 of the Act and have,,
further not chosen to contest the said claim.,,
S.No.,Particulars,"Court File Pagination
along with Volume No.
1.,"Print of Contact Details of various websites as available on WHOIS
(primary domains):",
,1)mp4moviez.io (Defendant No. 1),FOLDER IV
,,Pages 227-229 (Vol. 2)
,2)mp4moviez.lol (Defendant No. 2),"FOLDER IV Pages 262-264
(Vol.2)
,3)mp4moviez.im (Defendant No.3),FOLDER IV 280-282 (Vol.2)
,4)Mp4moviez.tube (Defendant No. 16),"I.A.
 No.
18419/2020
Pg. No. 55-58
,5) Mp4moviez.org.in (Defendant No.17),"I.A. No.
18419/2020
Pg. No. 58-62
2.,"Copies of proof of ownership of movie
titles
a) Aquaman (Warner)","Folder IV Pages 24-25 (Vol.1
)
3.,Screenshots of Homepage of various websites (primary domains):,
,1)mp4moviez.io (Defendant No. 1),"Folder IV
Pages 206-215
(Vol. 2)
,2)mp4moviez.lol (Defendant No. 2),"Folder IV
Pages 247-250
(Vol. 2)
,3)mp4moviez.im (Defendant No.3),"Folder IV
Pages 270-272 (Vol. 2)
,4)Mp4moviez.tube (Defendant No. 16),"I.A. No.
18419/2020
Pg.42-45
4.,Printout of proof of infringement by websites (primary domains):,
,1)mp4moviez.io (Defendant No. 1),"Folder IV
Pages 216-226
(Vol. 2)
,2)mp4moviez.lol (Defendant No. 2),"Folder IV
Pages 252-261
(Vol. 2)
,3)mp4moviez.im (Defendant No.3),"Folder IV
Pages 273-279
(Vol. 2)
5.,"Printouts of the DMCA, FAQ, etc. pages, evidencing infringing nature of
the Defendant Websites:",
,"1) mp4moviez.lol
(Defendant No.2)",Help at page 251
e. Whether the online location makes available or contains directories, indexes or categories of the means to infringe, or facilitate an",,
infringement of, copyright;",,
f. Whether the owner or operator of the online location demonstrates a disregard for copyright generally;,,
g. 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;,,
h. 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;,,
 j. Any other relevant matter.,,
60. This Court clarifies that the aforementioned factors are illustrative and not exhaustive and do not apply to intermediaries as they are,,
governed by IT Act, having statutory immunity and function in a wholly different manner.",,
 Xxxxx,,
69. Consequently, the real test for examining whether a website is a Rogue Website is a qualitative approach and not a quantitative one.â€",,
18. This Court further held as under:,,
“29. It is important to realise that piracy reduces jobs, exports and overall competitiveness in addition to standards of living for a nation",,
and its citizens. More directly, online piracy harms the artists and creators, both the struggling as well as the rich and famous, who create",,
content, as well as the technicians-sound engineers, editors, set designers, software and game designers-who produce it and those who",,
support its marketing, distribution and end sales. Consequently, online piracy has had a very real and tangible impact on the film industry",,
and rights of the owners.,,
30. The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (“the Copyright Actâ€) confers a bundle of exclusive rights on the owner of a “work†and",,
provides for remedies in case the copyright is infringed.,,
Xxxxx,,
34. The above definitions make it clear that making any work available for being seen or heard by the public whether simultaneously or at,,
places chosen individually, regardless of whether the public actually sees the film, will constitute communication of the film to the public.",,
The intent was to include digital copies of works, which would include within its scope digital copies of works being made available online",,
(as opposed to the physical world). Communication can be by various means such as directly or by display or diffusion. In this context,",,
definition of “broadcast†is also relevant which identifies communication to public by wireless diffusion or by wire. Thus, making",,
available of a film for streaming or downloads in the form of digital copies on the internet is within the scope of “communication to the,,
publicâ€.,,
35. It is pertinent to note that the definition of “communication to the public†was first added in the Copyright Act by the 1983,,
Amendment and was as follows:-,,
“Communication to the public? means communication to the public in whatever manner, including communication though satelliteâ€.",,
Xxxxx,,
53. Also should an infringer of the copyright on the Internet be treated differently from an infringer in the physical world? If the view of the,,
aforesaid Internet exceptionalists school of thought is accepted, then all infringers would shift to the e-world and claim immunity!",,
54. A world without law is a lawless world. In fact, this Court is of the view that there is no logical reason why a crime in the physical world",,
is not a crime in the digital world especially when the Copyright Act does not make any such distinction.,,
Xxxxx,,
80. In the opinion of this Court, while blocking is antithetical to efforts to preserve a ?free and open? Internet, it does not mean that every",,
website should be freely accessible. Even the most vocal supporters of Internet freedom recognize that it is legitimate to remove or limit,,
access to some materials online, such as sites that facilitate child pornography and terrorism. Undoubtedly, there is a serious concern",,
associated with blocking orders that it may prevent access to legitimate content. There is need for a balance in approach and policies to,,
avoid unnecessary cost or impact on other interests and rights. Consequently, the onus is on the right holders to prove to the satisfaction of",,
the Court that each website they want to block is primarily facilitating wide spread copyright infringement.,,
Xxxxxx,,
82. One can easily see the appeal in passing a URL blocking order, which adequately addresses over-blocking. A URL specific order need",,
not affect the remainder of the website. However, right-holders claim that approaching the Court or the ISPs again and again is",,
cumbersome, particularly in the case of websites promoting rampant piracy.",,
83. This Court is of the view that to ask the plaintiffs to identify individual infringing URLs would not be proportionate or practicable as it,,
would require the plaintiffs to expend considerable effort and cost in notifying long lists of URLs to ISPs on a daily basis. The position,,
might have been different if defendants' websites had a substantial proportion of non-infringing content, but that is not the case.",,
84. This Court is of the view that while passing a website blocking injunction order, it would have to also consider whether disabling access",,
to the online location is in the public interest and a proportionate response in the circumstances and the impact on any person or class of,,
persons likely to be affected by the grant of injunction. The Court order must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, but must not create",,
barriers to legitimate trade. The measures must also be fair and not excessively costly (See: Loreal v. Ebay, [Case C 324/09]).",,
Xxxxxx,,
86. Consequently, website blocking in the case of rogue websites, like the defendant-websites, strikes a balance between preserving the",,
benefits of a free and open Internet and efforts to stop crimes such as digital piracy.,,
Domain,URLs,IP Addresses
Mp4moviez.lol,http://Mp4moviez.lol,104.27.163.251
Mp4moviez.la,http://Mp4moviez.la,104.24.97.140
Mp4moviez.in,http://Mp4moviez.in,104.31.65.171
Mp4moviez.desi,http://Mp4moviez.desi,104.24.98.173
Mp4moviez.io,http://Mp4moviez.io,104.27.189.22
Mp4moviez.im,http://Mp4moviez.im,104.27.188.14
