Act. While, use of a mark for any of the purposes elaborated above, in respect of genuine goods of the owner would not be infringement, the performance of any service as elaborated above, in respect of counterfeit goods or goods which are not genuine, could constitute infringement…..” (xiv) It is also worth noting that during the COVID-19 pandemic, teachers and the education system as a whole, have taken great initiative to ensure access of educational materials to students through online modes such as videos, PDF documents, etc. If the protection of copyright is not evolved as per the changing times, it would have a chilling effect on the progressive initiatives taken by educators in sharing their materials and ensuring accessibility. (xv) Lastly, in so far as Telegram’s submission regarding the Plaintiffs not providing verifiable proof that their copyright has been infringed are concerned, the Court notes that there is clear inconsistency between the stand of Telegram at different instances. While it states that proof of infringement is required, it has already blocked various infringing channels and abided by the order dated 28 th July, 2020, without demanding further proof, including private channels. In any event, this Court has found a prima facie case of infringement, which is sufficient to direct Telegram to enable the Plaintiffs to available of their remedies under the Copyright Act. 46. In view of the above factual and legal position, in the opinion of this Court, merely because Telegram chooses to locate its server in Singapore, the same cannot result in the Plaintiffs’ – who are copyright owners of course materials – being left completely remediless against the actual infringers, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:31.08.2022 12:12:31 CS (COMM) 282/2020 Page 49 of 51