Delhi High Court Orders Blocking of Websites Publishing Fake Articles on Anant Ambani’s Interview

In an order passed on 28^th May, a single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula of the Delhi High Court restrained websites from publishing fake articles on Anant Ambani’s interview on CNBC TV18 YouTube Channel and said that it amounts to infringement of Trademark, Copyright, and Personality Rights. [Network 18 Media and Investments Limited & Ors Vs. WWW.BrawlersFightClub.Com & Ors.]

Background

This case primarily involves the intellectual property rights of Network18 Media and Investment Limited, TV18 Broadcast Limited, and Anand Narasimhan, a well-renowned journalist in India (“Plaintiffs”). The interview video which features Mr. Anant Mukesh Ambani, Director of Reliance Industries Ltd. with Mr Anand Narasimhan was uploaded on the ‘CNBC TV18’ YouTube Channel on 26^th February, 2024.  TV18 Broadcast Ltd. (a subsidiary of Network 18). Subsequently, after the interview video, an article was published on the website that describes a fake/made-up interview from the actual Interview of Mr. Ambani. Thus, The Network 18 filed a suit for a permanent injunction against various rogue websites restraining the infringement of their intellectual property rights, i.e., copyright of an interview video, trademarks as well as personality rights. The suit also seeks to issue interim relief in respect of the personality rights of Mr. Anand Narasimhan, the anchor in the interview video.

Plaintiff’s Contentions

• The counsel for the plaintiffs said that they have an exclusive right to make a copy of the film under Section 14 (d) (i) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
• He submits that these rogue websites describe a fake/ made-up interview from the actual Interview of Mr Ambani with Mr. Anand.
• He submits that the articles on websites redirect to a cryptocurrency trading platform called “Everix Edge” which allegedly helps earn a passive income and offers large returns. The article quotes Mr. Ambani as claiming that anyone can register with Everix Edge with a minimum deposit of Rs. 26,000/- and transform this amount into Rs. 10,00,000/-, yielding a 4,000% return within a few months. To lend credibility to the article, it is falsely presented as being published by the BBC, the renowned public broadcaster and news agency of the United Kingdom.
• He contends that this article is infringing and passing off Plaintiff’s trademarks and also infringing Plaintiff’s copyright in the Interview Video.
• He contends that they have found URLs of these websites being shared as posts on platforms “Facebook” and “X”.

Court’s Observation

• The Court agreed with the Plaintiff’s contention and said that they have demonstrated aprima facie case for infringement of TV18 marks and copyright, passing off of the Plaintiff’s mark, and the personality rights of Mr. Anand Narasimhan. The Court said “It is evident from the screenshot extracted above that the impugned article contains a picture from Mr. Narasimhan’s interview in which TV18 holds copyright. The said article is prima facie defrauding and scamming the public by using the name, likeness, image, and reputation of Mr. Anand Narasimhan, screenshot of the interview in which the copyright is owned by the TV18, name of TV18’s channel “CNBC TV 18” and mark which is deceptively similar to Network 18 and TV18’s marks.” Thus, the Court has restrained these rogue websites from infringing Plaintiff’s marks and copyright and also restrained from violating the personality rights of Mr Anand Narasimhan.
• The Court directed the social media platforms, “Facebook” and “X”, to block or remove the posts available at the URLs provided and also provide the court with details of these users within four weeks.
• The Court further directed Domain Name Registrars to block/ suspect the respective domain names and directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology to issue necessary directions to telecom service providers and internet service providers to block the websites

Counsel for Plaintiffs: Mr SaiKrishna Rajagopal

Counsel for Defendant No. 11 (Meta Platforms Inc.): Mr. Tejas Karia, Advocate with Mr. Varun Pathak, Mr. Yash Karunakarun, Ms. Adya Joshi, and Ms. Arunima Srivastava

Counsel for Defendant No. 16 (Domain Name Registrar): Ms. Mrinal Ojha, Advocate with Ms. Debarshi Datta and Ms. Tanya Chaudhury