The Delhi High Court has ruled that where the material on record prima facie shows that websites are rogue online platforms deliberately designed to facilitate unauthorised streaming and communication of copyrighted cinematograph films, including through redirect mechanisms, embedded players and exploitative use of a legitimate platform’s URL structure and goodwill, the Court may grant ex parte ad interim injunctive relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC to restrain such infringement and to direct domain name registrars, ISPs and governmental authorities to suspend domains and block access.
The Court’s reasoning is founded on the proposition that such conduct prima facie infringes the copyright owner’s exclusive rights under Sections 14(d) and 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957, that the defendants in such a case are not passive intermediaries where they actively facilitate infringement, and that the balance of convenience and irreparable harm requirements are satisfied in favour of the copyright owner.
Accordingly, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining defendant nos. 1 to 6, as well as associated mirror, redirect or alphanumeric websites, from hosting, streaming, reproducing, distributing, making available to the public, or communicating to the public the plaintiff’s original content. It directed defendant nos. 7 to 12, being the domain name registrars, to lock or suspend the identified websites and furnish registrant details, including KYC and related particulars, to the plaintiff within 72 hours. It also directed defendant nos. 13 to 21, being ISPs, to block access to the identified websites within 72 hours, and directed DoT and MeitY to notify registered ISPs to block access to those infringing websites.
The Court further permitted the plaintiff, if additional infringing websites were discovered during pendency of the suit, to notify the DNRs and ISPs with supporting evidence for immediate suspension/blocking and to seek impleadment and extension of injunction orders through appropriate applications.
The Court also clarified that if any website not primarily engaged in infringement was blocked pursuant to the order, such website could approach the Court with an undertaking that it did not intend illegal dissemination of the plaintiff’s content, and the Court would consider modification of the injunction if warranted. Procedurally, notice was issued, timelines were fixed for filing written statements, replication, and affidavits of admission/denial, and the matter was listed before the Joint Registrar on 5 August 2026 for completion of service and pleadings and before the Court on 14 October 2026.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela prima facie found that the defendants were violating the plaintiff’s copyright by operating rogue websites designed to enable unauthorised access to the plaintiff’s films and that such acts amounted to hosting, uploading, streaming, reproducing, distributing, making available to the public, and communicating to the public the plaintiff’s original content without permission. The Bench observed that these are acts falling within the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under Section 14(d), and further held that the conduct complained of also prima facie violated Sections 14 and 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957. It additionally noted that the defendants were not passive intermediaries but were actively facilitating infringement through redirect mechanisms, embedded players, backend source-resolution systems, and instructional material guiding users to pirated content.
The Bench further observed that the defendants’ websites were prima facie rogue online platforms deliberately structured to facilitate large-scale infringement, and that use of domain names incorporating “IMDb” reflected dishonest adoption intended to exploit IMDb’s goodwill and induce users into accessing infringing streams under the guise of legitimacy. On this basis, the Bench held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff and that continued operation of the impugned websites would cause persistent and irreparable injury to the plaintiff’s statutory and commercial rights, including loss of revenue, dilution of exclusive exploitation rights and uncontrolled circulation of pirated copies, none of which could be adequately compensated in damages at a later stage.
Briefly, a commercial copyright infringement suit was filed concerning rogue websites alleged to be enabling unauthorised streaming of the plaintiff’s cinematograph films. The plaintiff pleaded that it is an established entertainment company incorporated in California, owns or controls copyright in various films including Straight Outta Compton, The Purge: Election Year, The Secret Life of Pets 2, F9: The Fast Saga and Fast X, and enjoys the exclusive rights available to a copyright owner in cinematograph films under Section 14(d) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiff’s case was that IMDb is a legitimate title-information database and that the impugned websites exploited IMDb’s URL structure and title IDs to redirect users from legitimate IMDb pages to unauthorised streaming interfaces.
The plaintiff specifically alleged that defendant no. 1, playimdb.com, instructed users to take an official IMDb title-page URL and insert the word “play” before “imdb”, thereby generating a new URL that redirected the user to defendant no. 2, streamimdb.ru, where the film was allegedly made available through an embedded rogue player. The plaintiff’s case was that defendant nos. 1 and 2 were not merely wrappers around embedded players but also functioned as ordinary rogue streaming websites, and that defendant nos. 3 to 6 operated in a similar manner as embed/API player services converting IMDb title IDs into access to embedded video streams. It was also alleged that incorporation of the expression “IMDb” in the domain names was intended to borrow IMDb’s recognition and make the redirection appear to be a natural extension of the legitimate IMDb platform.
Appearances:
Saikrishna Rajgopal, Siddharth Chopra, Suhasini Raina, Mehr Sidhu, Raghav Goyal, Affain Moin and Aditya Thakur, Advocates, for Plaintiffs
Satya Ranjan Swain, CGSC along with Naveen, GP, for Defendants
