means.” It is thus clear that the devices of the channel operators, which are permitting and enabling such dissemination and communication, would constitute “plates” within Section 2(t) of the Act and they would constitute “duplicating equipment”. Therefore, both civil and criminal Courts in India would always be vested with jurisdiction to adequately deal with dissemination of infringing material through such devices and merely because the messaging service has its server located abroad, the same cannot result in the infringer escaping from the consequences of infringement. All contentions to the contrary would be untenable. Right to Claim Damages: 40. Moreover, apart from an injunction, one of the most significant remedies that an IP owner or a copyright owner is vested with, is the right to claim damages. Such damages, especially in cases of infringers who are earning large sums to the detriment and at the cost of the copyright owner, acts as a deterrent against further infringement. If infringers are permitted to mask their identity through technological means provided by messaging apps, and their identity is not directed to be disclosed, the remedy of damages against infringement would be rendered completely nugatory. Under Section 55 of the Copyright Act, the owner has a right to seek damages as also accounts of profits. Accordingly, the grant of injunction per se in the absence of commensurate damages or monetary deterrents, would be a toothless relief. Such orders do not constrain the infringers from simply creating new infringing channels and even profit off of their infringement, till the time the plaintiff is able to seek an injunction for every new channel. As discussed above, the broadly worded provisions of the Copyright Act indicate a conscious legislative mandate to eliminate undue and continuous harassment Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:31.08.2022 12:12:31 CS (COMM) 282/2020 Page 28 of 51