Telegram Reveals Identity Details Of Users In Second Copyright Infringement Case, Delhi High Court Says Its Disclosure To Police Permissible
Nearly a week after it disclosed before Delhi High Court the admin names, phone numbers and IP Addresses of users accused of sharing copyrighted study material in a suit filed by a teacher, Telegram has again shared in sealed cover the identity details of more users who have been accused by India Today Group of infringing its trademarks and copyrights.In the order dated November 29, Justice...
Nearly a week after it disclosed before Delhi High Court the admin names, phone numbers and IP Addresses of users accused of sharing copyrighted study material in a suit filed by a teacher, Telegram has again shared in sealed cover the identity details of more users who have been accused by India Today Group of infringing its trademarks and copyrights.
In the order dated November 29, Justice Amit Bansal recorded that pursuant to the order passed by the court on October 18, Telegram "has placed on record the identity/Basic Subscribers Information of the defendants in a sealed cover".
The court ordered that the data filed on behalf of Telegram be provided in a sealed cover to the counsels for the plaintiff "with a clear direction that neither the plaintiffs nor the counsels shall disclose the said data to any third party, except for the purposes of the present proceedings."
The court added that "further, towards this end, disclosure to government authorities/police is permissible."
On October 18, the court had directed Telegram to "disclose the identity/Basic Subscriber information of Defendants No. 2 to 15 accounts and their uploaders, in a sealed cover, within a period of three weeks". While passing the direction, Justice Bansal had observed that India Today Group is entitled to the relief claimed in its prayer for sharing of the user information as a co-ordinate bench has already decided the question regarding such disclosure in Neetu Singh and Another v. Telegram FZ LLC and Others
Living Media India Limited, popularly known as India Today Group, earlier this year filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Telegram channels which are allegedly infringing its trademarks and copyrights.
On March 04, Telegram told the court that offending channels as referred to in the list provided by the plaintiff have been deleted. Telegram was directed by court to take necessary steps to delete the channels containing infringing material, as expeditiously as possible, whenever the same are brought in its notice by the media conglomerate, which owns magazines like India Today and Business Today, and owns a number of news channels.
On July 11, the court had directed Telegram to to preserve the Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) of the users. It had taken note of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 which require an intermediary in India to "retain his information for a period of one hundred and eighty days after any cancellation or withdrawal of his registration, as the case may be".
Live Law had last month reported that the messaging app for the first time after Delhi High Court's decision in Neetu Singh versus TELEGRAM FZ LLC complied with the directions asking it to disclose information of users who are accused of sharing infringing material on the messaging app.
Telegram is widely used by users in India to unauthorisedly share PDF files of ePapers and Magazines. Since the content is otherwise mostly behind the paywall, many of the publications including Times Group, Dainik Jagran and India Today have approached Delhi High Court in recent months seeking permanent injunction against such infringement.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh on August 30 in Neetu Singh's case rejected Telegram's argument that it cannot share the data relating to the creators or users of the channels, as the said data is stored in its data servers in Singapore and the law there prohibits such disclosure.
In the landmark decision, the court had held that both civil and criminal courts in India would always be vested with jurisdiction to adequately deal with dissemination of infringing material through such devices and merely because the messaging service has its server located abroad, the same cannot result in the infringer escaping from the consequences of infringement.
"Courts in India would be perfectly justified in directing Telegram, which runs its massive operations in India to adhere to Indian law and adhere to orders passed by Indian Courts for disclosure of relevant information relating to infringers. Infringers cannot be permitted to seek shelter under Telegram's policies merely on the ground that its physical server is in Singapore," Justice Singh said in the order.
The verdict was passed by Justice Singh in a suit filed by K D Campus Private Limited and its teacher Neetu Singh alleging that the study material prepared by them for various competitive examinations was being unauthorisedly made available on Telegram's channels by anonymous users. The court had noted that despite the injunction order, the infringers continued to operate under completely masked identities and repeated blocking of the channels was proving to be insufficient.
In a case filed by Jagran Prakashan Limited, the high court on November 23 directed the Telegram to comply with a 2020 order directing it to disclose the basic subscriber information of the users who unauthorisedly upload and share ePaper of Dainik Jagran newspaper in PDF in their channels. Justice Navin Chawla in the order took note of the submission that the issue regarding disclosure of identity of users by Telegram is no longer res integra and has been settled in Neetu Singh.
Title: LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. versus TELEGRAM FZ LLC & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1144