The Delhi High Court has granted summary judgment in favour of Associated Broadcasting Company Limited, which operates the TV9 Network. The Court declared that TV9’s use of certain video clips in its news programmes did not infringe copyright. It also restrained several entities from issuing groundless copyright threats.
Justice Tejas Karia delivered the decision on February 28, 2026, in Associated Broadcasting Company Limited v. Google LLC & Ors., CS(COMM) 9/2024.
What The Suit Sought
Associated Broadcasting Company Limited filed the suit to stop Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 from issuing what it described as groundless copyright infringement threats. It also sought a declaration that its news videos did not infringe any copyright allegedly held by those defendants.
The plaintiff also moved an application for summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It relied on Rule 27 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 and Chapter XA Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
Background: News Clips Used For Reporting Current Events
The plaintiff operates television channels and digital platforms under the “TV9” network. It uploads news programmes on its websites and YouTube channels, including TV9Telugulive and TV9Bharatvarsh.
During news coverage of events such as Hurricane Laura in the United States, heavy snowfall, floods in New York, the Israel-Hamas conflict, and the Chinese balloon incident, the plaintiff used brief portions of publicly available footage within longer programmes.
Copyright Strike Notices And Earlier US Litigation
In December 2023, the plaintiff received multiple copyright strike notices issued through YouTube by Defendant Nos. 2 to 5. The notices alleged that the plaintiff’s videos used footage owned by them.
The plaintiff filed counter-notifications and asserted fair dealing and de minimis use. In some cases, it removed videos without prejudice to its rights.
The plaintiff also relied on material showing that Defendant No. 3 had filed a copyright case in the Northern District Court of California titled Viral DRM LLC v. Underknown Corp., et al. (Case No. 3:23-cv-06598-JSC). That suit later stood voluntarily dismissed on May 15, 2024, insofar as the contested channels were concerned.
Defendants Did Not Appear; Court Proceeded Ex Parte
Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 did not enter appearance or file written statements despite service. The Court closed their right to file written statements on January 23, 2025. It then proceeded ex parte against them on March 24, 2025. The Court treated the plaint averments and supporting documents as admitted.
Court’s Findings On Fair Dealing And De Minimis Use
While examining the plaintiff’s declaratory relief, the Court considered Section 52(1)(a)(iii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The provision protects fair dealing for reporting current events.
The Court noted that the disputed footage appeared for brief durations—often seconds—within longer news segments. It formed part of broader reporting with commentary and analysis. The plaintiff did not present the clips as standalone broadcasts.
The Court relied on precedents including ESPN Star Sports v. Global Broadcast News Ltd. (2008) and India TV Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd. (2012). It held that limited use for news reporting could fall within fair dealing. It also held that trivial copying that causes no demonstrable harm may attract the principle of de minimis non curat lex.
Section 60: Groundless Threats Of Infringement
The Court also examined Section 60 of the Copyright Act, which provides a remedy against groundless threats of infringement proceedings.
It noted that Defendant No. 3 had once filed a suit in the United States, but the Court treated the voluntary dismissal as significant. The dismissal meant the defendant did not meaningfully prosecute an infringement action for the purpose of the proviso to Section 60.
The Court also found that Defendant Nos. 2, 4, and 5 did not initiate any proceedings capable of adjudicating their copyright claims.
The Court further considered the conduct surrounding the YouTube strike notices. It noted demands for confidential revenue documents and communications warning that the matter would “go very poorly” if the plaintiff did not provide those documents. The Court held that such conduct did not amount to commencement and prosecution of an infringement action before a competent court.
Final Relief Granted
The Court held that the plaintiff made out a case under Section 60. It restrained Defendant Nos. 2 to 5, along with their directors, partners, employees, affiliates, and anyone claiming through them, from issuing groundless threats alleging copyright infringement in respect of the plaintiff’s videos.
The Court also declared that the subject videos and the use of the disputed footage did not constitute copyright infringement.
Allowing the application for summary judgment, the Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff in terms of Prayer Paragraphs 47(i) and 47(ii). Since the plaintiff did not press damages and did not seek relief against Google LLC and its Indian subsidiary, the Court disposed of the suit accordingly and directed that a decree sheet be drawn up.
