Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Roy M.A. & Ors.

Ritesh KaraleCase Summary

Ex-parte order against the websites infringing the plaintiff's exclusive rights to the 2014 India-Sri Lanka cricket series

Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Roy M.A. & Ors.
In the High Court of Delhi
CS(OS) 3319/2014
Before Justice Manmohan Singh
Decided on November 05, 2014

Relevancy of the Case: Ex-parte order against the websites infringing the plaintiff’s exclusive rights to the 2014 India-Sri Lanka cricket series

Statutes and Provisions Involved

  • The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Section 149, 151, Order XXXIX Rule 1, 2, 3)
  • The Copyright Act, 1957 (Section 37)

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • The first plaintiff, Star India, had exclusive rights to the India-Sri Lanka cricket series. The plaintiff’s rights cover broadcasting, hosting, and distributing the series in India. It has purchased these exclusive rights from BCCI, making it the only entity to distribute the series in any form throughout the country.
  • Defendants 1 to 31 and 52 to 70 websites have hosted and distributed the series on their platform without the authorisation of the first plaintiff. The above-mentioned websites are anonymous in nature. It is difficult to trace them and identify their source.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

  • The petitioner’s counsel argued that it has exclusive rights over the distribution of the India-Sri Lanka series cricket matches of 2014. These websites are infringing the plaintiff’s rights. They are distributing pirated content through unlawful means. He pleaded that the difficulty of tracing these anonymous sites makes it necessary for the court to pass an ex-parte order.

Opinion of the Bench

  • The anonymous nature of the websites makes it necessary to pass an interim order in the plaintiff’s favour.
  • The balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff has made a prima facie case.

 Final Decision

  • The bench ordered defendants 1 to 31 and 52 to 70 (websites) to stop hosting and distributing any material related to this series. Further, the bench directed defendants 32 to 49 to block access to the list of websites identified by the plaintiff. It directed defendants 50 and 51 to order various internet service providers to block access to these sites.