The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of Jiostar India (Plaintiff) and restrained the Defendants and any person acting on their behalf, from communicating, hosting, streaming, reproducing, or making available to the public any part of the ‘ICC Under 19 Men’s Cricket World Cup 2026’ and the ‘ICC Men’s T20 Cricket World Cup 2026’.
The Court also directed the Domain Name Registrars and the Internet Service Providers/ Telecom Service Providers to block the specified infringing domain names and websites within 72 hours. At the same time, the Court directed the Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to issue necessary instructions for blocking the said websites.
The Court also granted the Plaintiff liberty to communicate the details of any further infringing websites to the DNRs, ISPs, and government bodies for immediate blocking on a real-time basis.
The Court’s reasoning for granting the injunction is founded on the principle that the holder of exclusive Broadcast Reproduction Rights under Section 37 of The Copyright Act, 1957, is entitled to protection against unauthorized communication and dissemination of its content. The Court emphasised that the unauthorized streaming of the ‘Events’ by the rogue websites and applications of Defendants No. 1 to 4 constitutes a prima facie infringement of the Plaintiff’s exclusive rights.
Given the time-sensitive nature of the live sporting events and the defendants’ history as habitual infringers, the Court reasoned that an immediate ex-parte ad interim injunction was imperative to prevent irreparable financial loss and injury to the Plaintiff. The Court further reasoned that a ‘Dynamic+ injunction’ is necessary to combat the dynamic nature of infringement by such rogue websites, allowing the injunction to apply to newly discovered mirror/redirect websites without requiring the Plaintiff to return to court for each new infringing URL, thus making the remedy effective.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh noted that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff and that irreparable harm and injury would be caused to the Plaintiff if the interim relief was not granted. The Bench acknowledged that the Plaintiff’s exclusive rights were evident from the confirmation letter issued by the International Cricket Council (ICC), which consequently confers upon the Plaintiff Broadcast Reproduction Rights under Section 37 of The Copyright Act, 1957.
The Bench observed that the unauthorized dissemination and broadcast of the ‘Events’ by Defendants No. 1 to 4 prima facie infringes the Plaintiff’s rights. The Bench also took note of the recurring threat posed by rogue mobile apps engaged in piracy, stating that such activities must be curbed and dealt with a heavy hand.
Referring to its own precedent in Universal City Studios LLC. Vs. Dotmovies Baby [2023 SCC OnLine Del 4955], the Bench observed that injunctions ought to be effective and can extend to future works, especially when dealing with hydra-headed rogue websites, to ensure that no irreparable loss is caused to the owners of copyrighted works.
Briefly, the Plaintiff, Jiostar India Private Limited, an entertainment and media company, filed a suit seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction to restrain infringement of its Broadcast Reproduction Rights. The Plaintiff asserted that through a Media Rights Agreement with the International Cricket Council (ICC), it acquired exclusive media rights, including television and digital rights, for various ICC events for a four-year period from 2024 to 2027. These rights, confirmed by an ICC letter, cover the ongoing ‘ICC Under 19 Men’s Cricket World Cup 2026’ and the upcoming ‘ICC Men’s T20 Cricket World Cup 2026’.
The Plaintiff contended that Defendants No. 1 to 4 are rogue Android-based applications and websites that were illegally streaming and making available the Plaintiff’s copyrighted content from the Events without authorization. The Plaintiff further stated that these defendants are habitual offenders who have previously circumvented court orders by creating new websites to continue their infringing activities.
The other defendants include Domain Name Registrars (DNRs), Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and government bodies like the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), who were arrayed to assist in the enforcement of court orders.
Appearances:
Advocates Sidharth Chopra, Yatinder Garg, Priyansh Kohli, Ishi Singh, and Manish Singh, for the Plaintiff
NA, for the Respondent
