Delhi HC declines to return Zee Entertainment’s copyright case against ShareChat and Moj

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has refused to return Zee Entertainment’s copyright infringement suit against ShareChat and Moj, holding that it has territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter, as per Live Law.

Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed an application by Mohalla Tech, which owns both platforms, seeking the return of the plaint for want of jurisdiction. The suit was filed against ShareChat, a social networking platform, and Moj, a short-video service, along with their respective websites.

Zee and Mohalla Tech had entered into an agreement effective November 1, 2022 under which the latter would supply, host and distribute Zee’s long-form audio-visual content and music videos on its platforms. A separate licence agreement was also executed. Both agreements expired between July and August 2023.

Zee later claimed to have identified more than 1,300 alleged infringements on ShareChat and over 8,000 on Moj through the platforms’ in-built music libraries. The company alleged that its copyrighted content continued to be made available to users for creating and sharing short videos despite the absence of any subsisting licence.

Mohalla Tech argued that the Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction because the agreements conferred “exclusive” jurisdiction on Mumbai courts. It submitted that any dispute “arising out of or in connection with” the contracts, including post-termination use of content, should be adjudicated in Mumbai. 

The company also contended that neither party has a registered office in Delhi and that mere online accessibility of its platforms in the capital does not satisfy Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court observed that the plaint did not concern breach of contract but addressed Zee’s allegation of unauthorised use and exploitation of its sound recordings and underlying works on the impugned platforms. It said the relief sought pertained to alleged illegal exploitation of Zee’s repertoire by Mohalla Tech, rather than disputes linked to the expired agreements.

“Considering the aforesaid, it is clear that defendant’s alleged exploitation of the plaintiff’s contents in Delhi, without any licence granted by the plaintiff, would be enough to show that this Court has the jurisdiction to deal with the present case relating to copyright infringement,” the Court noted.

It further held, “In view of the overall conspectus, this Court is of the considered view that reading of the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint clearly discloses that part of the cause of action for the reliefs, as claimed in the present suit, arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the present suit is maintainable, and this Court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes as raised in the present suit.”