- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court issues summons to Telegram-identified users for copyright infringement
Delhi High Court issues summons to Telegram-identified users for copyright infringement
The matter will be heard on 20 March 2023
The Delhi High Court has issued summons to the Telegram users days after the messaging app disclosed their identity details. Telegram was accused by the India Today Group of infringing its trademarks and copyrights.
In its order, the bench of Justice Amit Bansal stated, "In light of the details of the defendants No.2 to No.15 being made available in the affidavit filed on behalf of Telegram (defendant No.1), subject to the plaintiff taking the steps, summons be issued to the defendants through all electronic modes."
Telegram had recently placed on record the identity/basic subscribers' information of the defendants before the court in a sealed cover.
The court directed the parties to keep the information confidential. However, it clarified that "disclosure to the government authorities/police was permissible."
Telegram now submitted additional information before the court, as the India Today Group complained that it had not received details of all the defendants.
The bench said, "An additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of Telegram in compliance with the orders passed by the court on 18 October 2022 and 29 November 2022. The information disclosed in the affidavit has been filed separately in a sealed cover."
In October, the court had directed Telegram to disclose the identity of the defendants and their uploaders. It observed that the India Today Group was entitled to the relief claimed for sharing the users' information since a co-ordinate bench had already decided the question regarding such disclosure in the Neetu Singh and Another vs Telegram FZ LLC and Others case.
Early this year, Living Media India Limited, popularly known as the India Today Group, had filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Telegram channels, which were allegedly infringing its trademarks and copyrights.