The Rights of the Deceased: Moral Rights Incidental to Copyright Law
- Vanshika Agrawal
- 2024-04-25
Contents hide
2 When Can One Claim A John Doe Order?
3 Procedure To Get A John Doe Order
4 Evolution of John Doe Orders In India
4.1 Due to the use of the deceiving term “internet”
4.2 Hence, the court issued the following guidelines:
5.1 [4] Taj Television & Anr v Rajan Mandal & Ors [2003] FSR 22.
5.2 [10] Reliance Big Entertainment v. Multivision Network & Ors, CS(OS) No. 2066 of 2011
The concept of John Doe Orders started in England, during the 14th century under King Edward III where John Doe was the unidentified defendant/anonymous party against whom orders were issued. The concept became more in use during Liberalisation, Privatisation, and Globalisation where several cases, disputes involving unknown parties came up which then together were characterized as John Doe. A John Doe can be anyone an individual, a company, a partnership, an association, trust who infringe intellectual
property rights of another by taking particular steps with such intent. John Doe orders are also referred to as Rolling Anton Pillar, Ashok Kumar, or Anton Pillar orders.[1]
In India, John Doe orders are used as a legal remedy against unidentified parties whose identities are hidden under various layers of covers
making them untraceable and a potential threat to the given project, work, etc. So to protect one’s intellectual property rights from such unidentified parties, John Doe orders are issued. Under Indian Legislation, John Doe orders are usually issue in the matters of movies, books, sports events.
In the case of movies, producers can protect their rights by requesting the court to issue a John Doe’s order in name of the particular movie produced, so as to prevent the product before or after release from copying, telecasting, and selling unauthorized copies of the same. Case of books, either the author or the publisher may request for a John Doe order, given that they can establish that
there is a reasonable apprehension of copying without permission. In the case of sports events, the court usually grants John Doe orders to protect the live telecasting rights.[2]
John Doe orders are grant under Order 39 Rule 1 and Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), read with s.151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) and part III of Specific Reliefs Act. Apart from which the court also issues interim orders under John Doe orders are grant when certain conditions are fulfill. Firstly, the Plaintiff has to present the court with evidence that his/her right has been breached. Secondly, the plaintiff should establish a prima facie case before the court grants relief. Lastly, the plaintiff is require to establish that in case, the court doesn’t grant John Doe order defendant’s action would lead
to irreparable/financial damage to the plaintiff.[3]
Taj Television & Anr v Rajan Mandal & Ors[4] was the first case where the Delhi High Court granted an exparte interim order, allowing the plaintiff to search and seize equipment, devices of an unknown defendant. Thus, setting a jurisprudence of passing John Doe/Ashok Kumar orders. The principle established under the Taj Television case was used as precedent in many cases like ESPN Software v Tudu Enterprises[5]. The Taj Television judgment throughout the years received criticism for sketchy implementation but
over years Indian courts have laid down proper formulation and
directions of execution in cases of Intellectual property infringement.[6]
Through the years, the ambit of John Doe orders has expanded from only the media industry to all industries, to prevent infringement of trademark and copyright of the plaintiff. They are not only limit to the situation of infringement, but also courts have issued the Orders
before infringement in form of Quia Timent injunction. In India, the john doe orders are only limit to intellectual property rights violations, as
the concept is still non-existent to many even
though it is provided for in the criminal legislation.[7]
Due to the rampant increase in piracy in past years, the courts have started granting these orders regularly like in case Reliance Big Entertainment v. Jyoti cable Network[8] i.e. Singham case, Reliance by establishing all three conditions approached Delhi High Court to request a John Doe order to prevent illegal broadcasting of the upcoming movie. Delhi High Court, in this case, granted the John Doe order mentioning the very vague term “internet” under
which the company sent a list of websites to ISPs requesting them to stop
such websites from committing piracy, unable to do so, the ISPs blocked the entire website, hindering
in the legitimate use of the website to legitimate users. [9]
the website owners had to face the negative impact of the injunction. Granting of such vague injunctions using in various cases like Bodyguard[10], Speedy Singhs[11], Don 2[12] have led to indiscriminate blocking of websites prior to any infringing content being uploaded. Owing to this issue, the Madras High Court, in RK Productions v. BSNL[13], reduced the scope of such John Doe Orders mandating that the order can only mention specific URLs of the website which host pirated content rather than entire websites.
Dissenting with Madras High Court’s judgment, Delhi High Court in Star v. Hameer Ujwal[14] granted an order to block near 100s of websites, where the court stated that merely blocking the URLs was not going to be of use, as websites can easily change the URL and share the pirated content. The judgment by Delhi High Court was criticize by many
as the judgment was in violation of consumer fair use rights mentioned
under s.52 of the Copyright Act, 1957. [15] So to overcome this issue, Bombay High Court in its judgment in Balaji Motion Pictures & Anr v Bharat Sanchar Nigam & Ors.[16] stated that the plaintiffs are required to send a public notice along with court-issued John Doe Order to defendants, giving defendants a period of four days to apply against the grant of the injunction.
Bombay High Court in its judgment in Eros International and Anr v BSNL & Others[17] issued guidelines for issuing a John Doe order in such a way that the consumer’s fair use right is not violated, plaintiff doesn’t face any damages from infringement, the defendant doesn’t face the unnecessary negative impact of website blocking, and ISPs were mere executory authority monitored by the court so as to avoid abuse of power.
John Doe orders are very essential in the present era, where piracy is at its peak. Even though it is imperative to understand the importance of these orders, it is also imperative to understand that the social impact of such orders. On one hand, where the concept of the John Doe Order, has spread awareness and protection among owners of Intellectual Property, on the other, its poor execution &
implementation has led to the violation of rights of others
as these orders are pass without hearing the other side. Hence, it is pertinent that these orders are issue in a proper manner, where
their implementation doesn’t defeat the purpose of the order itself.
[1] Payel Chatterjee, ‘What’s in a name’…John Doe arrives in India, Nishithdesai.com (Jan 09 7:28PM) https://www.nishithdesai.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/-What-s_in_a_name-_-_John_Doe_arrives_in_India.pdf
[2] Nikieta Aggrawal, What are John Doe Order and in which situation they are grant, IPleaders.in (Jan 09, 2021 10:37AM) https://blog.ipleaders.in/john-doe-orders/#:~:text=The%20person%20who%20is%20of,to%20issue%20John%20Doe%20order
[3] Ajay Sharma, John Doe Orders In Indian Context, Rmlnlulawreview.com (Jan 10 2:38PM) https://rmlnlulawreview.com/2017/10/25/john-doe-orders-in-indian-context/
[5] ESPN Software v Tudu Enterprises CS (OS) 384/2011.
[6] Shri Lakshmi Sivanandam and Bhabya Mahapatra, India: To Sue Or Not To Sue Ashok Kumar, Mondaq.com(Jan 08, 2021 9:47PM) https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/911592/to-sue-or-not-to-sue-ashok-kumar#:~:text=Currently%2C%20the%20biggest%20legal%20tool,the%20potential%20infringer(s)
[7] Ajay Sharma, John Doe Orders In Indian Context, Rmlnlulawreview.com (Jan 10 2:38PM) https://rmlnlulawreview.com/2017/10/25/john-doe-orders-in-indian-context/
[8] Reliance Big Entertainment Pvt Ltd v. Jyoti Cable Network & Ors, CS(OS) No. 1724 of 2011
[9] Saloni Dukle, John Doe Orders For Online Piracy: Examining the Judicial trend in India, 1 HNLU Student Bar Journal 47 (2016)
http://sbj.hnlu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/john-doe.pdf
[11] Viacom 18 Motion Pictures v. Jyoti Cable Network & Ors, CS(OS) No. 2352 of 2011
[12] Reliance Big Entertainment v. Multivision Network & Ors, CS(OS) No. 2066 of 2011
[13] M/s R K Productions Pvt Ltd v BSNL & Ors, CS(OS) No. 208 of 2012
[14] Star v. Hameet Ujwal CS (OS) 3702/2014.
[15] Saloni Dukle, John Doe Orders For Online Piracy: Examining the Judicial trend in India, 1 HNLU Student Bar Journal 47 (2016)
http://sbj.hnlu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/john-doe.pdf
[16] Balaji Motion Pictures & Anr v Bharat Sanchar Nigam & Ors CS (OS) No 694/2016.
[17] Eros International and Anr v BSNL & Others CS(OS) No 2315/2016
[18] Ajay Sharma, John Doe Orders In Indian Context, Rmlnlulawreview.com (Jan 10 2:38PM) https://rmlnlulawreview.com/2017/10/25/john-doe-orders-in-indian-context/
Drop your comment