For more intellectual property updates follow our WHATSAPP CHANNEL and SUNS LEGAL | LinkedIn
Introduction
Online piracy poses a persistent enforcement challenge: rogue websites blocked by court order routinely resurface through mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric domains, forcing rights holders back to court, while unrestrained self-help risks handing intermediaries or plaintiffs powers they are not authorised to exercise. On 27 July 2026, the Delhi High Court addressed this tension in an ad-interim injunction order in Home Box Office Inc. & Ors. v. Streamzy.to & Ors. (CS(COMM) 740/2026), passed on the plaintiffs’ application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC against several “rogue websites” streaming their copyrighted films without authorization. The suit remains pending: the defendants are yet to file replies, and the matter is next listed before the learned Joint Registrar.
Facts of the Case
The plaintiffs alleged that Defendants Nos. 1–30 were rogue websites engaged in streaming and distributing their copyrighted films, often immediately upon release or even before release. Defendants Nos. 31–50 were identified as Domain Name Registrars (DNRs), Defendants Nos. 51–59 as Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and Defendants Nos. 60–61 as government bodies, namely the Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.
The registrant details of the rogue websites were hidden behind privacy-protection policies, making it impossible to proceed against their operators directly. Since such websites tend to resurface through mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric variants soon after being blocked, the plaintiffs sought an order permitting the ISPs and DNRs to block any newly discovered infringing website merely upon being notified by affidavit, without a fresh court order for each new site.
Argument in Favour
The plaintiffs maintained that the defendant websites were dedicated to piracy, with their primary purpose being copyright infringement. Relying on the Court’s own precedent, they pointed out that online piracy was a multi-billion-dollar business causing significant financial loss to content owners. They argued that blocking rogue websites did not undermine internet freedom but was necessary to prevent cyberspace from becoming a “lawless world.”
They stressed that a dynamic mechanism was essential given the tendency of infringing websites to reappear almost instantly after being blocked. In UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.To & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8002, the Court had defined rogue websites and held that online infringers should not be treated differently from offline infringers. In Universal City Studios Productions LLLP v. Movies123.LA & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3852, the Court had supported dynamic injunctions to protect works as soon as they were created. In Universal City Studios v. Mixdrop Co. & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3395, the Court had highlighted mirror websites re-emerging within minutes of a block.
Argument Against
Some defendants, particularly the DNRs and ISPs, raised concerns about the plaintiffs’ request. They did not oppose blocking identified rogue websites but objected to a blanket interim injunction that would require them to block any new website merely upon notification by the plaintiffs.
As neutral intermediaries, they argued they were neither authorized nor equipped to determine whether a website was rogue, and that blocking should occur only pursuant to judicial or administrative orders, in keeping with the principle of judicial oversight over restrictions on online content.
Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, while carefully structuring the relief to balance competing interests.
The Court found that the defendant websites bore the hallmarks of flagrantly infringing online locations, their primary purpose appearing to be facilitating copyright infringement rather than incidental infringement. It applied Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which grants intermediaries safe harbour but requires action upon a valid court order, and relied on Order I Rule 10 CPC to permit impleadment of mirror websites, keeping injunctions effective against newly discovered infringing sites.
The Court acknowledged the practical futility of static injunctions against websites that resurface in new forms, but also stressed that intermediaries should not be burdened with adjudicatory responsibilities.
Several cases were cited to support the Court’s reasoning. UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.To & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8002 defined rogue websites and rejected treating online infringers differently. Universal City Studios Productions LLLP v. Movies123.LA & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3852 justified dynamic injunctions to protect future works. Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Terrimeridooriyan.com & Ors., Order dated 23.02.2024 in CS(COMM) 163/2024 allowed plaintiffs to notify intermediaries of new infringing websites by affidavit. Home Box Office Inc. v. Moviebox.ph & Ors., Order dated 06.04.2026 in CS(COMM) 358/2026 permitted blocking of newly discovered websites infringing HBO’s series “Euphoria.” Universal City Studios v. Mixdrop Co. & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3395 highlighted the speed with which mirror websites re-emerge. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. Series9.io & Ors., Order dated 10.10.2022 in CS(COMM) 400/2019 applied the UTV Software test to permit dynamic injunctions. Finally, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 underscored the necessity of judicial oversight before online content can be restricted.
In reviewing these precedents, the Court observed that coordinate Benches had moulded such relief differently: some required plaintiffs to first move the Joint Registrar with a supporting affidavit before an extended blocking direction took effect; others allowed ISPs and DNRs to act directly upon the plaintiffs’ intimation, subject only to a later affidavit; and others directed ISPs and DNRs to block forthwith upon intimation, with no prior application or affidavit at all. Mindful that an intermediary cannot be handed an adjudicatory role it is not equipped to discharge, the Court combined the affidavit, technical-verification, and simultaneous impleadment requirements into one mechanism — more conditioned than several precedents it reviewed.
The Court directed plaintiffs to furnish ISPs and DNRs with affidavits and supporting documentation identifying mirror or redirect sites. ISPs and DNRs were required to perform technical verification confirming that a site was indeed a mirror of an injuncted defendant before blocking it, while plaintiffs simultaneously filed impleadment applications before the court, keeping the intermediaries’ role limited to verification and preserving their neutral status.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Home Box Office Inc. v. Streamzy.to & Ors. strikes a careful balance between the genuine difficulty rights holders face in chasing mirror and redirect websites, and the risk of conferring adjudicatory powers on intermediaries or plaintiffs themselves. By permitting a dynamic injunction subject to affidavits, technical verification, and simultaneous impleadment applications, the Court ensured enforcement remains swift without compromising judicial oversight.
This order builds upon earlier precedents and establishes a structured mechanism: plaintiffs can act swiftly against mirror websites but must substantiate their claims through affidavits and court applications. It underscores that cyberspace cannot be a lawless domain where infringers operate with impunity, while copyright owners remain entitled to effective remedies and intermediaries retain their neutral role under the law.
For content creators and production houses, the order signals that the judiciary is responsive to the realities of digital piracy. For intermediaries, it clarifies their obligations while guarding against overreach, striking a careful balance between protecting intellectual property rights and preserving the integrity of internet governance.
