Finding California proceedings prima facie vexatious and oppressive where the broadcasts, audience, evidence, and governing law are rooted in India, the Delhi High Court has held that a DMCA counter-notification does not shift an India-centric copyright dispute to the US. The Court restrained Global Weather Productions LLC and other defendants from prosecuting their copyright infringement action pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against T.V. Today Network Limited.
The High Court prima facie held that the jurisdiction declaration contained in YouTube’s DMCA counter-notification process was a standard-form requirement imposed by the platform and not a negotiated agreement between the parties selecting a US forum. The allegedly infringing videos were conceived, edited, uploaded, and broadcast from India by an Indian broadcaster for Indian audiences. The relevant records, personnel, and evidence were also located in India, making Indian courts the appropriate forum.
Allowing parallel proceedings in the US while the same copyright issues were pending before the Delhi High Court could result in inconsistent outcomes and subject conduct undertaken in India to adjudication under foreign law. Accordingly, the Court observed that brief extracts of weather footage used within news broadcasts, narration, and commentary may fall within the fair dealing exception under Section 52 of the Copyright Act and may also qualify as de minimis use.
Briefly, the dispute arose after T.V. Today Network Limited, which operates news platforms such as Aaj Tak and India Today, used short clips of weather events and natural disasters in its news reports uploaded on YouTube. Global Weather Productions LLC and other US-based individuals claimed copyright over those recordings and issued copyright complaints through YouTube, resulting in the takedown of certain videos. To seek restoration of the content, the broadcaster filed counter-notifications under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Thereafter, the copyright holders instituted a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging copyright infringement and related violations concerning 42 videos.
The broadcaster approached the Delhi High Court seeking, among other reliefs, an anti-suit injunction to restrain the defendants from continuing the US proceedings. It argued that all relevant acts were carried out in India, the videos were created for Indian audiences, Indian copyright law governed the dispute, and forcing it to defend proceedings in the US would be oppressive.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia observed that the impugned videos were conceived, edited and uploaded from India by an Indian broadcaster and that the alleged harm from the copyright complaints was suffered in India. Accordingly, the foreign defendants were prima facie amenable to the jurisdiction of Indian courts.
The Court further noted that the only substantial connection with the United States was the broadcaster’s use of YouTube and the jurisdiction declaration contained in the DMCA counter-notification process. Prima facie, this declaration was merely a standard-form requirement imposed by YouTube and not a negotiated forum-selection agreement between the parties. Therefore, it could not by itself shift the forum of a dispute arising entirely from acts carried out in India.
The Court held that permitting the US action to continue would subject conduct undertaken in India to adjudication under foreign law while substantially the same issues were simultaneously pending before an Indian court. Such a situation created a real possibility of conflicting decisions and was prima facie oppressive and vexatious.
While examining the merits at the interim stage, the Court referred to its earlier decision in Associated Broadcasting Company Limited v. Google LLC [2026 SCC OnLine Del 815] and observed that weather events and natural phenomena are matters of fact and current affairs. It noted that brief extracts used within news reporting, narration and commentary may fall within the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a)(iii) of the Copyright Act and may also attract the doctrine of de minimis use. The allegations that only a few seconds of footage were used in news reports remained uncontroverted because the defendants had not appeared.
