Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, granted an injunction to Zee Entertainment against 60 rogue websites. The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held, “plaintiff has demonstrated a prima facie case for grant of injunction and, in case, no ex parte ad interim injunction is granted, the plaintiff will suffer an irreparable loss. Further, balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff, and against the defendants”. 

Zee Entertainment filed an application seeking exemption in a suit filed for a permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, and damages. The suit was based on severe piracy of their content and infringement of copyright and broadcast reproduction rights. Zee Entertainment claimed exclusive rights to publicly exhibit and communicate its content on Zee5 and Zee Channels, which it produced or licensed. Under the Copyright Act, this content qualified as “Cinematograph Films” per Section 2(f), read with Section 13. Additionally, under Section 14(d), Zee Entertainment held the exclusive right to make its content publicly accessible and, under Section 37, enjoyed broadcast reproduction rights.

Zee Entertainment, represented by Advocate Sidharth Chopra, observed significant infringement by defendants 1 through 60, consisting of rogue websites that, without authorization, hosted, streamed, or facilitated access to Zee Entertainment's works. Content such as "Bastar - The Naxal Story," "Kakuda," "Rautu ka Raaz," and other original series were identified on these unauthorized sites.

Defendants 1 to 60 were identified as anonymous websites displaying pirated content for financial gains. The nature of their actions indicated clear malintent, evidenced by their substantial third-party content, systematic organization, and frequent updates.

Defendants 61 to 81 were domain name registrars listed for blocking or suspending these websites, while defendant 82, Google LLC, was cited for de-indexing rogue websites from its search results. Defendants 83 to 91, Internet Service Providers, were included to block or restrict access, and defendants 92 and 93, namely, the Department of Telecommunications and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, were included to issue necessary notifications.

Advocate Sidharth Chopra highlighted that defendants 1–60, primarily anonymous, continually violated Zee Entertainment’s intellectual property rights. Without intervention, these defendants’ activities would cause Zee Entertainment irreparable harm, given the significant investments in content production and distribution.

The court therefore passed the following directions: 
“The defendant nos. 1 to 60, their owners, partners, officers and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under it, are restrained from in any manner communicating, hosting, streaming, and/or making available for viewing and downloading, without authorization, on their websites or other platforms, through the internet in any manner whatsoever, the plaintiff’s works so as to infringe the plaintiff’s exclusive rights and broadcast reproduction rights. 
II. The defendant nos. 61 to 81 and its 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, are directed to suspend the domain name registration of the defendant nos. 1 to 60, as per the details as given in Annexure-B to the present order. 
III. The defendant nos. 61 to 81, are directed to disclose the following information of defendant nos. 1 to 60: a. Complete details such as name, address, email address, phone number, IP address, etc. b. Mode of payment along with payment details used for registration of domain name by the registrant(s). 
IV. The defendant nos. 83 to 91, 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, are directed to block access to the various websites identified by the plaintiff, details of which are given as Annexure C. 
V. The defendant nos. 92 and 93 are directed to issue a notification calling upon various internet service providers registered under it to block access to the various websites identified by the plaintiff in the instant suit, details of which are given as Annexure-C. 
VI. If during the pendency of the present suit, any further websites are discovered by plaintiff, which are illegally streaming infringing content, copyright of which is owned by plaintiff, plaintiff is granted liberty to communicate the details of such websites to defendant no. 92 (Department of Telecommunications) and defendant no. 93 (Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology), for issuance of blocking orders and simultaneously to the Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) for blocking the said websites. 
VII. Upon receiving the said intimation from plaintiff, the ISPs shall take steps to immediately block the rogue websites in question. 
VIII. The DOT and MEITY shall also issue necessary blocking orders immediately upon the plaintiff, communicating the details of the websites, which are illegally streaming the content, over which the plaintiff has rights. 
IX. After communication of details of the rogue websites to the concerned authorities, the plaintiff shall continue to file affidavits with the Court, in order to ensure that the Court is fully informed of the websites in respect of which blocking orders are sought. 
X. If any website, which is not primarily an infringing site, is blocked pursuant to the present order, they shall be permitted to approach this Court by giving an undertaking that it does not intend to engage in any unauthorized streaming of any content, over which the plaintiff has rights. 
XI. As and when new further websites are discovered by the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to file an application for their impleadment, which shall be taken up before the Joint Registrar (Judicial), and the order passed today shall be extended to the said newly impleaded website as well”. 

Case Title: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v Bollyzone.Tv & Ors. (CS(COMM) 937/2024)