Shilpi Tripathi is a first year, LLM student at Ajeenkya DY Patil University, Pune
Introduction
In the wake of the digital age, intellectual property rights owners are the most vulnerable in cyberspace. The threats of piracy to copyrighted works are more than ever. Accordingly, the Courts have been concerned about such a menace and have consistently worked to ensure the greatest protection to the authorised owners of IPR.
A thorough framework for defending the rights of owners of creative works is established under the Copyright Act of 1957. The collective commercial privileges granted to creators under Section 14 encompass the exclusivity to reproduce, adapt, and publicly disseminate their work. By acknowledging their broadcast reproduction rights and giving them control over the rebroadcasting, public performance, and recording of their transmissions, Section 37 gives media companies additional protection. Section 55 provides IPR holders with civil remedies in cases of infringement, including injunctions, damages, or an accounting of profits; however, criminal amenability, such as monetary fines and incarceration for copyright infringement, is provided within Section 63.
An injunction is a judicial process by which the one who has invaded, or is threatening to invade the legal rights of another is restrained from continuing or commencing the wrongful act. The injunction orders passed under civil law are insufficient to grapple with-modern day IPR violations. Therefore, the traditional boundary of injunctions has stretched its arms wide, evolving to chase down piracy as it slips through new channels and changed modes of dissemination the unauthorised work.
Foundational Context
While dealing with piracy, it was found that infringing websites often exploited gaps in the enforcement framework . When an injunction was issued against a platform containing predominantly infringing material, operators would swiftly create redirect, mirror, or rogue websites, which remain outside the scope of the restraining order, thereby continuing unlawful dissemination. To fight against such elusive tactics, the Courts developed dynamic injunctions in the case of UTV Software Communication Ltd. and Others v. 1337x.to. Such orders are initially aimed at infringing websites, but they can be extended to mirror or redirect websites once their existence is reported to the Courts. The plaintiff only needs to make an impleadment application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Dynamic injunctions, as the name suggests, are sought when infringing material resurfaces under a new domain name or URL, thus continuing the distribution of unlawful content under a veiled identity.
The spectrum of dynamic injunction was broadened further by the Honourable Delhi High Court in Universal City Studios LLC and Others v. Dotmovies.Baby and Others wherein the future works of the copyright owners were also protected. The idea is to protect not just published work but also forthcoming works of creators, as rogue websites can upload the upcoming work within seconds, inflicting irreversible loss on creators’ rights. The nature of the order shifted from an ex-post infringement order to an ex-ante infringement order, meaning the work can be protected even before any actual harm is caused, on mere apprehension of misuse.
Over the recent years, the Courts have been vigilant to protect against the unlawful, illegal dissemination of copyrighted works, especially because the means and forms of violation are emerging routinely. This year, the Court has introduced a new concept ‘superlative injunction,’ a new play compared to the earlier innings of dynamic and dynamic+ injunctions.
Facts of the case
In Star India Pvt Ltd v. IPTV Smarter Pro and Others the plaintiff approached the Honourable Delhi High Court for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing copyright and broadcast reproduction rights. The court granted an ex parte ad–interim order in favour of the plaintiff and directed the impugned websites, along with their domain name registrars, to take down and disable all the said rogue websites. Additionally, the plaintiff was given the liberty to bring on record other newly flagged domains, URLs hampering their authorised work.
Subsequently, the plaintiff submitted seven impleadment applications, highlighting three newly discovered rogue mobile applications along with sixteen additional domains, URLs, and user interfaces that were unlawfully transmitting its content. In the present application, the plaintiff seeks prompt and effective action coupled with real-time blocking of such websites and mobile applications. The relief is sought in the backdrop of major sporting events lined up, in particular the IPL and the England Tour of India 2025, during the Court’s summer vacation this year.
Issues before the Court
The central concern before the Court was the rampant proliferation of rogue websites and mobile applications including platforms linked to IPTV Smarters Pro that were unlawfully streaming copyrighted sporting content by circumventing licensing and broadcasting rights. These platforms provide free, unauthorized access to live matches, thereby misappropriating Star India’s IPR for public use on a mass scale. Hence, the plaintiffs seek effective judicial intervention in restricting the unlawful broadcasting of live cricket matches.
Appraisal and Ratio Decidendi
The court was of the opinion that the plaintiff is the original owner of exclusive broadcasting rights and that the defendant intends to impede the plaintiff’s IPR through rogue websites, URLs, and mobile applications, consequently dismissing the plaintiff’s rights without exception.
The court remarked that, although the relief had previously been granted against rogue websites, with the change in the mode of violation, there is no resistance in extending the relief against rogue mobile applications and associated domains and user interfaces that flagrantly infringe upon the IPR of original owners.
The Court opined that it is tasked with safeguarding the IPR of the copyright holder, namely the plaintiff, and that the specific mode of dissemination of infringing content is immaterial for its protection. The order in question constitutes a superlative injunction best described as an advanced iteration of the existing dynamic+ injunction. Its significance lies in enabling the plaintiff to secure real-time remedies against the infringing conduct of rogue defendants, irrespective of the platform, format, or medium through which such violations are carried out.
Concluding Reflections
Website-wide blocking through Dynamic and Dynamic+ injunctions has had its share of backlash. The Bombay High Court has noted the risks of imposing such orders without confirming that all material on the affected site is unlawful. The tendency to issue John Doe orders with limited scrutiny of the plaintiff’s claims further compounds this problem. Equally troubling is the presumption that some websites contain only unlawful content, a conclusion unsupported by clear proof. Beyond these legal questions, the financial burden imposed on internet service providers in executing blocking orders has been consistently neglected in judicial consideration.
Having regard to the above shortcoming, however, the injunction framework has become a model for balancing the complexity of the digital world with effective enforcement. It was first created for copyright enforcement but has subsequently been widely used in trademark and anti-fraud disputes also.
Dynamic and Superlative injunctions seem to have wider use in future to combat online impersonation, deepfakes, and misuse of information, as well as in situations where adaptive relief is needed. The challenge, however, lies in maintaining a fair balance and ensuring that such measures remain effective, timely, and practically viable. The shift from conventional restraining orders to dynamic forms of injunction that extend across social media platforms, live streaming, future works, and diverse forms of dissemination reflects a judicial effort to address the evolving nature of cyber infringement.