Delhi High Court: A suit was filed by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (plaintiff) a reputed broadcaster, production house and film studio, who also owns and operates the Zee Channels and the digital entertainment platform/streaming service called ‘Zee5’ seeking permanent injunction, rendition of accounts and damages, on account of blatant piracy of the plaintiff’s works and infringement of copyright and broadcast reproduction rights of the plaintiff. Mini Pushkarna, J., restrained defendant 1 to 60, their owners, partners, officers others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under it, from 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.
The plaintiff, a distinguished broadcaster, production house, and film studio, has initiated a suit against several defendants for permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, and damages due to significant piracy of the plaintiff’s intellectual property. The plaintiff operates Zee Channels and the digital streaming service Zee5, which are renowned for their original programming and cinematic productions. The core issue in the suit revolves around the defendants, identified as rogue websites, which are accused of unlawfully hosting, streaming, and distributing the plaintiff’s copyrighted works without authorization.
The factual background of the case indicates that the plaintiff holds exclusive distribution rights over its content as per the Copyright Act, 1957. This includes rights related to the public exhibition and communication of its works, classified as “Cinematograph Films” under the Act. The plaintiff’s exclusive rights encompass the right to make these works accessible to the public, as outlined in Section 14(d), along with broadcast reproduction rights under Section 37 of the Act. The plaintiff has gathered substantial evidence demonstrating that the defendant’s websites are systematically infringing upon these rights by displaying its original content, such as popular television shows and films, without consent.
The filing of the petition was precipitated by the plaintiff’s discovery of extensive infringement activities by the defendants, who are primarily anonymous entities that operate websites with the intent of profiting from pirated content. The plaintiff emphasizes that these websites make locating their owners nearly impossible due to the use of inaccurate or concealed information in the public domain. The extensive nature of the infringement is characterized by a consistent pattern of distributing the plaintiff’s works, which has been documented in the materials submitted with the plaint. In light of the defendants’ actions, the plaintiff sought legal recourse to protect its intellectual property rights and prevent further unauthorized exploitation of its content.
During the proceedings, the plaintiff’s counsel argued that the defendants’ activities constitute blatant violations of copyright, and the rights associated with the broadcast of its works. It was contended that if the injunction were not granted, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm, including financial losses and the potential devaluation of its intellectual property, which is critical to its business model.
The Court noted that the evidence provided established a prima facie claim of copyright infringement and underscored the importance of protecting the plaintiff’s exclusive rights, stating that the balance of convenience clearly favored the plaintiff. The Court further recognized the potential for irreparable harm if the defendants were allowed to continue their infringing activities unchecked, which could significantly undermine the plaintiff’s business and future production endeavors.
Thus, the Court granted a temporary injunction against the defendants, restraining them from hosting, streaming, or making the plaintiff’s works available for public viewing or download without authorization.
[Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. Bollyzone.TV, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7492, decided on 24-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Sidharth Chopra, Mr. Vivek Ayyagari, Mr. Angad S. Makkar, Mr. Rishabh Rao, and Ms. Chanda Shashikant, Advocates for plaintiff
Mr. Neel Mason, Advocate with Mr. Vihan Dang, Mr. Ujjawal Bhargava and Mr. Aditya Mathur, Advocates for D-82
