The Delhi High Court has asserted that where a broadcaster demonstrates exclusive rights in upcoming sporting events and shows that identified websites are rogue platforms habitually engaged in unauthorized streaming of its content, the Court can grant ex parte ad interim injunctive relief to immediately restrain such infringement. Accordingly, the Court restrained rogue website operators (Defendants) from communicating, hosting, streaming, screening, disseminating or making available for viewing or downloading any part of the identified sporting events without authorization of Sony Pictures Networks India, on any electronic or digital platform.
Additionally, the Court directed the domain name registrars to block and suspend the listed domain names forthwith upon service of the order, and further directed them to disclose in sealed cover or password-protected form the complete available details of the rogue website operators. The ISPs and telecom service providers were directed to block the defendant websites immediately upon service of the order, while DoT and MeiTY were directed to issue necessary directions to all ISPs for blocking or removing access to the websites identified in the order.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh accepted that Sony had made out a prima facie case for urgent ex parte protection. It noted that piracy by rogue websites is a recurring and serious threat to copyright owners, especially where live sporting events are involved and the commercial value of the content is time-sensitive. The Court observed that any delay in blocking access to such websites, particularly when the Commonwealth Games 2026 were about to commence on 23 July 2026, would result in irreparable injury, loss of revenue, and continuing breach of Sony’s copyrights. The balance of convenience was therefore held to lie in Sony’s favour and against the infringing websites.
The Court also treated the defendant platforms as falling within the established judicial understanding of “rogue websites”. It recorded that these platforms systematically uploaded and disseminated unauthorized copyrighted broadcasts, used pseudonymous interfaces, withheld ownership information, and functioned in complete disregard of copyright law. While doing so, the Court referred to earlier Delhi High Court precedents recognising the need for strong anti-piracy remedies, including dynamic injunctions where infringement is hydra-headed and mirror or redirected websites emerge rapidly. The Court found that effective relief in such cases cannot remain confined only to already-identified content and must be capable of addressing continuing and newly emerging modes of infringement during the currency of the events.
Also Read Supreme Court Considers Regulatory Framework to Curb Misuse of Court Hearing Videos on Social Media
Briefly, Sony Pictures Networks India Private Limited filed a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court against several rogue sports-streaming websites, domain name registrars, internet service providers, the Department of Telecommunications, and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. Sony stated that it is a leading broadcaster and digital content platform operator, with exclusive broadcasting and streaming rights over premium sports content through its television channels and Sony LIV platform. It pleaded that it had acquired exclusive media rights in relation to major sporting events including the Commonwealth Games 2026 and the Australian Open 2027, covering television, digital, streaming, broadcasting, communication to the public, and allied audio-visual rights in specified territories. Sony alleged that the defendant websites were unauthorizedly streaming and communicating its sports broadcasts, including live and repeat content, without any licence or permission, thereby infringing its broadcast reproduction rights under Section 37 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Sony further asserted that the websites in question were not ordinary platforms but “rogue websites” whose primary purpose was to host, stream, and disseminate infringing sports content. According to the plaint, these websites displayed Sony’s sports channel logos, routinely offered pirated live matches, highlights and clips, concealed their ownership behind privacy services, and operated with no verifiable contact details. Sony therefore impleaded the registrars for effective suspension of domain names, the ISPs for blocking access, and DoT and MeiTY for issuing the required blocking directions. It also included unknown future infringing entities as John Doe defendants because similar illegal websites were likely to surface during the sporting events in question.
