Jagran Prakashan Limited Takes Telegram to Court
The Internet gives us access to information on the click of a button. But what this accessibility also brings along is various threats to rights especially in the news market since news now flashes readily on Facebook and WhatsApp groups. Recently, Danik Jagran took Telegram to Delhi High court for violating its trademark and copyrights terms.
The plaintiff, a leading Hindi-language newspaper, Danik Jagran, has its trademarks registered under several classes. Its subscribers can avail access to news through physical copies or digitally on the web page. Yet, it does not give access to its users to download the digital newspaper in the form of PDF. The defendant, Telegram, is a cloud-based instant messaging service that is available on multiple operating systems. This app allows its users to create channels and post content anonymously.
Danik Jagran’s grievance comes due to the anonymous channels on Telegram being named after the publication. On these channels not only were the articles of the newspaper published but they were also circulated in the PDF form. This stands both as an infringement of the copyright of the paper, and a significant financial loss.
Seeking redressal for the same reasons the defendant was approached four times by the plaintiff. Telegram claimed that it was an intermediary and refused to reveal the identities of the users who were in violation of the plaintiff’s content. This was followed by a notice by Jagran Prakashan Limited to Telegram to shut down the channels in question (named as co-defendants in the case). On receiving the notice, the defendant vouched that the infringing channels had been blocked. The plaintiff, however, had evidence proving the contrary. The channels were still present and in fact, the user base of these channels was increasing rapidly.
Assessing the situation, the Delhi High Court sided with the plaintiff and ruled that the defendant could not stick to its intermediary status. The court further ordered Telegram to block the aforementioned channels within 48 hours as well as to reveal the identities of its creators.
Thus, this decision stands to control the wayward behavior now prevalent during the age of the internet. Limits and rights have to stay functional even when free data is flooding social media.
