DELHI HC: ONLY COURTS CAN FINALLY DECIDE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, GRANTS DYNAMIC INJUNCTION AGAINST 30 HBO PIRACY WEBSITES:

The Delhi High Court has granted a dynamic ad-interim injunction in favour of Home Box Office (HBO) Inc., restraining 30 allegedly infringing "rogue websites," including Streamzy.to, from unauthorisedly streaming and disseminating the plaintiffs' copyrighted cinematographic works. While recognising the necessity of an effective mechanism to curb online piracy, the Court clarified that the final determination of whether a subsequently identified website is engaged in copyright infringement must remain a judicial function. It held that although internet service providers (ISPs) and domain name registrars (DNRs) may be directed to block mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric variant websites after technical verification, they cannot be vested with adjudicatory authority to independently conclude that a website is infringing.

The suit was instituted by HBO against the operators of multiple piracy websites, along with their associated domain name registrars, internet service providers, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). The plaintiffs were represented by Advocate Saikrishna Rajagopal, while Advocate Kruttika Vijay appeared for the respondents.

The plaintiffs contended that defendants 1 to 30 operated as "rogue websites" by streaming or otherwise making available HBO's copyrighted motion pictures without authorisation, often immediately upon or even before their official release. It was submitted that these websites displayed the characteristics of "flagrantly infringing online locations" (FIOLs) identified in UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.To, including concealed registrant information, the absence of traceable contact details, and a catalogue overwhelmingly consisting of unauthorised copyrighted works. Given that the operators of such websites generally remain anonymous and frequently evade blocking orders by resurfacing through mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric domain variants, the plaintiffs sought a "Dynamic+" injunction to eliminate the need for repeated court proceedings whenever new iterations of the websites emerged.

Certain domain name registrars did not oppose blocking the websites specifically identified in the suit. However, they objected to any direction requiring them to disable future websites solely on the basis of unilateral notifications issued by the plaintiffs, arguing that such an approach would effectively compel intermediaries to exercise blocking powers without judicial or statutory authorisation.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani examined several earlier decisions of the Delhi High Court concerning rogue websites, including Universal City Studios v. Movies123.LA, Star India v. Terrimeridooriyan.com, Home Box Office Inc. v. Moviebox.ph, Universal City Studios v. Mixdrop Co., and Warner Bros. Entertainment v. Series9.io. The Court observed that different benches had adopted varying procedural mechanisms for extending injunctions to newly emerging infringing websites. While some required rights holders to seek permission from the Joint Registrar under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure before extending blocking directions, others permitted ISPs and DNRs to act upon the plaintiffs' intimation, subject to subsequent affidavits and an opportunity to raise objections.

After considering these approaches, the Court held that assigning intermediaries the responsibility of independently determining whether a newly identified website qualifies as a rogue website would improperly confer upon them an adjudicatory function that the law neither envisages nor authorises. Referring to the safe harbour regime under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Court emphasised that ISPs and DNRs are required to function as neutral intermediaries. Consequently, while technical verification may be undertaken to identify mirror or redirect websites, the ultimate decision to extend blocking orders must remain with the Court rather than resting on either the unilateral assessment of the plaintiffs or the independent satisfaction of intermediaries.

Accordingly, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the 30 identified websites from hosting, streaming, or making available HBO's copyrighted content. It further devised a dynamic mechanism enabling the injunction to be extended to subsequently discovered mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric variant websites, subject to technical verification and continuing judicial supervision. The Court clarified that any such blocking would operate only as a provisional measure and would remain subject to further judicial orders.