The Delhi High Court has issued an ad-interim injunction in favour of Home Box Office Inc (HBO – plaintiffs) and effectively restrained the defendant rogue websites from hosting, streaming, reproducing, distributing, making available or communicating the plaintiffs’ copyrighted films and shows, and also directed blocking action in relation to those identified websites. The Court clarified that where websites prima facie bear the hallmarks of rogue websites and are predominantly engaged in facilitating copyright infringement, the court can grant ad-interim blocking and anti-infringement relief against them.
However, in dealing with future mirror, redirect or alphanumeric websites, the court must strike a balance between effective enforcement and legal safeguards for neutral intermediaries. Plaintiffs cannot be allowed to unilaterally expand blocking relief, and ISPs or DNRs cannot be turned into adjudicatory bodies. The legally permissible course is to permit plaintiffs to notify newly discovered mirror or redirect websites on affidavit, allow the intermediary to perform only technical verification of whether such websites are in fact mirror or redirect versions of the already injuncted websites.
In essence, the court recognised a limited dynamic injunction framework, but one controlled by judicial supervision. The immediate anti-piracy protection can temporarily extend to technically verified mirror or redirect websites, yet such blocking remains purely pro tem and subject to the court’s further directions. This preserves both the effectiveness of copyright protection and the legal neutrality of intermediaries under the Information Technology Act. Accordingly, the court directed that if the plaintiffs discover any mirror, alphanumeric or redirect websites of the identified defendant websites that are directly or indirectly infringing their copyright, the plaintiffs may furnish to the concerned ISP and/or DNR an affidavit with particulars of such websites and supporting material showing prima facie infringement.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani emphasised that although piracy by rogue websites is a real and pressing menace, the legal response cannot be so broad that it gives parties or intermediaries powers they do not otherwise possess in law. An ISP or DNR is ordinarily a neutral intermediary and cannot be expected to adjudicate whether a website is rogue or infringing. Equally, plaintiffs cannot be allowed to assume the authority to unilaterally identify and disable websites merely under the guise of a blocking injunction. The court therefore rejected any mechanism that would transfer adjudicatory responsibility from the court to private parties or intermediaries.
The court then identified what it considered the correct balance. It held that plaintiffs should not be forced to approach the court afresh every time a mirror or redirect website emerges, because that would make anti-piracy relief ineffective. However, the final determination of whether a newly identified website should continue to remain blocked must still rest with the court. According to the court, this determination cannot be left either to the unilateral assessment of the plaintiffs or to the satisfaction of an intermediary.
Also Read Suspension Won’t Bar Hockey Kerala From Player Selections Through Technical Committee: Kerala HC
Another important observation was made on intermediary safe harbour under section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The court recognised that intermediaries are entitled to safe harbour only if they remain strictly neutral, and that they cannot be given discretion to block websites merely at the request of a private party. To preserve that neutrality, the court clarified that it was not delegating to ISPs or DNRs the power to decide whether a website is infringing. Their role was confined only to technical verification of whether a newly identified site was in fact a mirror, alphanumeric or redirect version of an already injuncted defendant website. Once that technical link was verified, the intermediary would enforce the court’s injunction only as a temporary measure, pending further court consideration.
The court also observed that there was no obvious reason for the plaintiffs to seek blocking of websites that they had themselves licensed. On that reasoning, the court said it did not perceive a real risk of misuse of the mechanism by the plaintiffs. Even so, it expressly warned that if any statement made by the plaintiffs in the affidavits filed before intermediaries or before the court was found to be baseless, false or lacking bona fides, appropriate orders would follow. The court further preserved the liberty of an ISP or DNR to approach the court if it considered that a requested blocking action should not be carried out.
Briefly, Home Box Office Inc. and connected plaintiffs filed the suit and an interim injunction application against 30 defendant websites, alleging that these sites were rogue websites illegally hosting, streaming, reproducing, distributing, making available and communicating to the public the plaintiffs’ cinematographic works, including titles and upcoming titles, without any licence or authority. The plaintiffs also arrayed domain name registrars as defendants, internet service providers, and the Department of Telecommunications and MEITY. The core grievance was that these websites were enabling piracy of the plaintiffs’ films and shows, sometimes immediately upon release and sometimes even before release, thereby causing continuing copyright infringement.
The plaintiffs argued that the defendant websites were not ordinary platforms but flagrantly infringing online locations, whose true operators were hidden behind masked registrant details and privacy-protection measures. According to the plaintiffs, while the registrars could be identified, the actual owners and operators of the websites could not be directly traced, making enforcement difficult. The plaintiffs therefore sought blocking orders not only against the named infringing websites, but also against any mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric versions that might emerge during the proceedings to continue the same piracy operations.
The plaintiffs relied heavily on the Delhi High Court’s earlier ruling in UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.to, where the court had explained the concept of rogue websites and held that online copyright infringers cannot be treated differently from physical-world infringers. The earlier decision recognised that piracy websites are predominantly profit-driven, operate through anonymity, invite users to consume free pirated content, and are often structured entirely around infringement. Applying those principles, the defendants bore the classic hallmarks of flagrantly infringing online locations.
A further practical issue arose in relation to future mirror and redirect websites. Counsel for some DNRs stated that they had no difficulty in blocking the websites specifically referred to in the plaint, but objected to a blanket direction requiring intermediaries to block any subsequently discovered infringing website merely upon the plaintiffs’ affidavit. They argued that this would force ISPs and DNRs, who are only intermediaries, to assume the role of deciding which websites should be blocked without a judicial or administrative order. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, pointed out that rogue websites often evade court orders by resurfacing as mirror, alphanumeric or redirect websites, which would make enforcement ineffective if they had to repeatedly chase new domains through fresh litigation.
