- 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 restrains unofficial broadcast of India-England Cricket Series
Delhi High Court restrains unofficial broadcast of India-England Cricket Series
The sporting event is scheduled from 1 July 2022 to 17 July 2022
The Delhi High Court has restrained 39 rogue websites from hosting or streaming the upcoming India-England International Cricket Series in violation of the broadcasting rights held by Sony Ten Network channels.
The bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Narula noted that the plaintiff, Culver Max Entertainment Private Limited, which owns and operates the Sony Ten channels, has exclusive media rights over the sporting event. It has made out a prima facie case in its favor for protection against the illegal transmission, broadcasting, communication, telecast, and unauthorized distribution of any event, match, and footage concerning the series.
The court also restrained the distribution platform operators from making available to the public any unauthorized and unlicensed broadcast of the copyrighted content on the local channels.
It further directed the Central government to issue necessary directions calling upon various ISPs, in general, to block access to rogue websites as well as their mirror/redirect/alphanumeric versions.
Stating that the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff, Justice Narula said it was likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury if an injunction was not granted in its favor. He directed the Internet service providers to block access to those websites.
The court's interim order read, "Defendants No.1 to 39 (f1.mylivecricket.live and others) are restrained from, in any manner, hosting, streamlining, reproducing, distributing, making available to the public and/or communicating to the public or facilitating the same on their websites through the Internet in any manner whatsoever, any cinematograph work, content, program, and show or event in which the plaintiff has the copyright."
"Defendants No.40 to 57 (distribution platform operators) and 92 (unknown person) are restrained from, in any manner to host, stream, reproduce, distribute, broadcast, make available to the public and/or communicate to the public any unauthorized and unlicensed reproduction or broadcast on the local channels or through other means of various copyrighted content, including but not limited to the matches of the said sporting events through cable network," the court added.
The tournament consists of one test match, three 20-20 matches, and three One-Day International matches.
The plaintiff had informed the court of its exclusive license concerning television and media rights from England and Wales Cricket Board Limited (ECB) to broadcast/communicate the sporting event to the public in the territories of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Myanmar, and the Maldives.
It further said that its lawsuit was initiated against the websites that were habitual defaulters. The unauthorized broadcast of the matches has resulted in losses to it as well as the government in terms of revenue collected through taxes, which is not recovered/recoverable from these pirated websites.