Dynamic injunction against ‘rogue websites’ in UTV case - Balanced remedy or excessive enforcement?
by Sudarshan Shekhawat
Delhi High Court has recently granted a ‘dynamic’ blocking injunction against certain websites publishing pirated films whereby the list of blocked websites can be updated as and when mirror websites are brought to the notice of the Court by the right holder. The Court also deliberated on the question on what is a ‘Rogue website’ and whether the test for determining a ‘Rogue website‘ is a qualitative or a quantitative one. While directing dynamic blocking, the Court also delegated the power to decide the issue of adding mirror/indirect websites to an existing blocking order, to the Joint Registrar of the Delhi High Court. According to the author, the fact that Court has allowed the plaintiffs to update the list of blocked websites as and when illegal twin/mirror image is created, is novel. Delegation of power to Joint Registrar to effectively update an existing injunction order is also not common. This order may raise lot of questions on either side of the spectrum and people may argue that the dynamic scheme may be subject to abuse. Nevertheless, it is surely a starting point for paving the way towards curbing piracy in a systematic way…
Ratio decidendi
- Patents – Exemption under Section 107A available to exports for clinical studies – Delhi High Court
- Trademarks – No suit for passing off maintainable if plaintiff’s use not honest – Delhi High Court
- Trademark registration confers rights on whole and not on individual parts – Delhi High Court
- Exclusive jurisdiction of court by agreement not violate Copyright Section 62 – Delhi High Court
- Non-renewed trademark cannot be removed without complying with procedure – Delhi High Court
- Overall look of the product enough to determine piracy of design under Section 22 – Delhi High Court
- Trademark - Permanent injunction from use of ‘TICER’, infringing ‘TIGER’ – Delhi High Court
News Nuggets
- Union Cabinet approves accession to Nice, Vienna and Locarno Agreements
- GI certification for five varieties of Indian coffee
- Broad claim in patent ineligible as it pre-empts use by entire industry
- Specific function using natural law is patentable
- Comparison of white salt to poison without proof is disparagement
- TV commercial making fun of men using women’s cream is not disparagement
