Final Determination Of Infringement Must Rest With Court, Not Intermediaries Or Plaintiffs Unilaterally: Delhi HC Issues Dynamic Injunction Against 30 Piracy Websites Streaming HBO Content
The Bench noted that ISPs and DNRs can only technically verify mirror websites, cannot be delegated adjudicatory power to determine "rogue" status.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has granted a dynamic interim injunction to Home Box Office (HBO) Inc. against 30 allegedly infringing "rogue websites" including Streamzy.to, to restrain the unauthorized streaming of the plaintiffs' copyrighted cinematographic works. It said that while internet service providers (ISPs) and domain name registrars (DNRs) may be directed to block mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric variant websites of injuncted "rogue websites" upon technical verification, they cannot be conferred with any adjudicatory discretion to independently determine whether a newly identified website is engaged in copyright infringement, since such a determination must continue to rest with the court alone.
The suit was filed against the piracy platforms alongside their domain name registrars (DNRs), internet service providers (ISPs), the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed, “Any mechanism that requires an ISP or DNR to satisfy itself, upon its own assessment, that a subsequently identified website is a ‘rogue website’ engaged in infringement of the plaintiffs’ rights, would effectively cast upon such intermediary an adjudicatory responsibility that it is neither equipped nor authorised in law to discharge. Therefore, the appropriate balance lies in ensuring that while the plaintiffs are not required to approach this court afresh each time a rogue website comes into existence, the ultimate determination of whether such website is liable to be blocked must continue to rest with the court. Such decision cannot be left either to the unilateral assessment of the plaintiffs or to the sole satisfaction of an intermediary”.
Advocate Saikrishna Rajagopal appeared for the plaintiffs and Advocate Kruttika Vijay appeared for the respondent.
The plaintiffs contended that defendants 1 to 30 were "rogue websites" streaming or making available the plaintiffs' motion pictures without licence, often immediately upon or even before release, and bore the hallmarks of "flagrantly infringing online locations" (FIOLs) as identified by a coordinate bench in UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.To, including masked registrant details, absence of traceable contact information, and content overwhelmingly comprising unlicensed works.
It was submitted that since the actual operators of these websites remained anonymous, and such websites typically resurface through mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric domain variations to evade blocking orders, a "Dynamic+" injunction was necessary to prevent the plaintiffs from having to repeatedly approach the court as a "moving target".
Counsel for some of the domain registrars did not object to blocking the identified rogue websites but raised concern that a blanket direction requiring them to block any future website merely upon the plaintiffs' unilateral notification, without judicial or administrative screening, would place intermediaries in the position of exercising blocking powers without any order backing such action.
Surveying a series of its own and coordinate benches' prior orders in similar rogue-website suits, including Universal City Studios v. Movies123.LA, Star India v. Terrimeridooriyan.com, Home Box Office Inc. v. Moviebox.ph, Universal City Studios v. Mixdrop Co., and Warner Bros. Entertainment v. Series9.io, the Court noted that varying models had been adopted, ranging from requiring plaintiffs to move the Joint Registrar under Order I Rule 10 CPC before extending blocking directions, to permitting ISPs and DNRs to act directly upon the plaintiffs' intimation subject to a subsequent affidavit and liberty to object.
The Court held that conferring upon intermediaries the power to independently assess whether a subsequently identified website qualifies as a "rogue website" would cast upon them an adjudicatory function they are neither equipped nor authorised in law to perform, since ISPs and DNRs must, under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, operate as neutral intermediaries to retain safe harbour protection, as recognised in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.
The Court accordingly granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the 30 identified websites from streaming, hosting, or making available the plaintiffs' copyrighted content, together with a dynamic mechanism for extending the injunction to subsequently discovered mirror or redirect websites subject to technical verification and continued judicial oversight, clarifying that any such blocking would remain a pro-tem measure subject to further orders of the court.
Cause Title: Home Box Office Inc. & Ors. v. Streamzy.to & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5967)
Appearances:
Plaintiffs: Saikrishna Rajagopal, Suhasini Raina, Raghav Goyal, Aditya Sing Thakur, Affan Moin, Advocates,.
Respondents: Kruttika Vijay, Harshitha Rathod, Suvarna Singh, Shweta Sahu, Deeksha Pokhriyal, Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC, Nipun Jain, GP, Advocates.