But to ask, as the Plaintiffs do, that an entire website be rendered is in itself unreasonable. It is one thing to ask that links to a specific download of the film in question be taken down or rendered inaccessible. Shah submits, and I think quite rightly, that it is unreasonable to expect any of the intermediaries or cable operators Defendants to block entire websites. 5, Hathway Cable & Datacom Limited, a prominent internet service provider in Mumbai and elsewhere. The Plaintiffs ask inter alia that all these websites be blocked by the Defendants.ĥ.
The plaint has a very long list of different websites, all of which supposedly offer or host, or, the Plaintiffs apprehend, will offer or host links to illicit downloads of this film. It is by no means the first of its kind.1Ĥ. The action is, therefore, a quia timet action. All that the Plaintiffs seek to do is to restrain potential damage and loss on account of pirated and illicit copies being made available online. The injunction sought does not relate to any internal dispute regarding the production of the film. The film is scheduled for release on 17th June 2016.ģ. The present Suit is in respect of a forthcoming film entitled “UDTA PUNJAB”. I myself have passed orders in similar matters.Ģ. It combines principles under Order 1 Rule 8 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with the well-known John Doe or Ashok Kumar principle. Some are Internet Service Providers (‘intermediaries’ within the meaning of Information & Technology Act, 2000) others are cable operators and some are unknown persons, those known as ‘John Doe’ or ‘Ashok Kumar’ defendants. G.S Patel, J.:- This is an urgent application moved against a number of Defendants.
0 kommentar(er)
