Delhi High Court Permanently Blocks 63 Rogue Sites From Streaming Copyrighted Films Without Permission

The Delhi High Court on 7 October permanently restrained 63 websites, including 123MoviesHub and Putlocker domains, from hosting, streaming, reproducing or distributing copyrighted films belonging to major entertainment studios, including Universal City Studios, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Columbia Pictures, Netflix Studios, Paramount Pictures and Disney Enterprises.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the judgment in a copyright infringement suit filed by the studios against operators of websites allegedly making their films and other audiovisual content available without authorisation.

The studios alleged that the websites were providing free access to their copyrighted films and other audiovisual content without permission. They relied on documentary material and an investigator's affidavit to support their claims.

The Court considered whether it could grant summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, without a specific application seeking such relief. It also examined whether the plaintiffs needed to lead oral evidence before the suit could be decreed.

It held that the suit could be decided on the basis of the pleadings and documentary material already on record. It observed that requiring the plaintiffs to lead evidence would merely repeat the contents of the plaint and serve no useful purpose, particularly because the defendants had failed to appear despite notice.

Relying on its earlier decision in UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.to (2017), the Bench reiterated the factors relevant to identifying rogue websites. These include whether a website primarily facilitates copyright infringement, whether the infringement is flagrant, whether its operators conceal their identities and whether the website disregards takedown notices.

It found that the material on record established that the websites primarily engaged in committing or facilitating copyright infringement. As the defendants had not contested the claims, the Court held that they had no real prospect of successfully defending the suit.

Justice Kaurav also permitted the plaintiffs to implead mirror, redirect and alphanumeric websites that provided alternative means of accessing the same infringing websites, subject to an appropriate application. It clarified that the decree would benefit each plaintiff only in respect of works in which that plaintiff held copyright.

Accordingly, the High Court permanently restrained the websites and their operators from infringing the plaintiffs' copyrights and directed the concerned internet service providers to block access to the identified websites.