suit for infringement in a place where the said owner resides or carries on his business. In the present case, the following factors would be relevant for the purposes of jurisdiction: (i) The Plaintiffs reside in Delhi and carry on business in Delhi. Thus, this Court is a Court of competent jurisdiction under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act. (ii) The infringement has happened in Delhi, as the copyrighted works are being circulated in Delhi. (iii) In all likelihood, as the materials being circulated relate to Indian examinations, the infringers, though unidentified at this stage, may also be based out of India. 27. Therefore, merely due to the fact that the persons disseminating the copyrighted works, are using the Telegram app and the said app retains its data outside India, on Telegram servers, the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be ousted. Having considered the jurisdictional requirements, the substantive provisions of the Copyright Act now merit consideration, as to whether disclosure of details can be directed or not. 28. Plaintiff No.1 is the owner of the course material, which would constitute “literary works” under Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act. The videos consisting of Plaintiff No.1 teaching various subjects would also constitute “cinematographic films” under Section 2(f) of the Copyright Act. Thus, under Sections 2(o) and 2(f) of the Copyright Act, both “literary works” and “cinematographic films” are protected. Further, Section 14 of the Copyright Act recognizes exclusive rights, which vest in the copyright owner. The works of the Plaintiffs being protectable under the Copyright Act, any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:31.08.2022 12:12:31 CS (COMM) 282/2020 Page 20 of 51