HBO Sought Blocking of Piracy Websites Streaming Its Films and Shows; Delhi High Court Restrains Rogue Websites and Creates Safeguards for Future Mirror Sites
Facts
The plaintiffs, including Home Box Office Inc. (HBO), filed a commercial suit alleging that several websites were illegally hosting, streaming and making available their copyrighted films and television shows without any licence or authorisation.
According to the plaintiffs, Defendant Nos. 1–30 were “rogue websites” dedicated to copyright piracy. They allegedly streamed copyrighted content immediately upon, and sometimes even before, official release. The plaintiffs also impleaded domain name registrars (DNRs), internet service providers (ISPs), the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), seeking directions to block access to the infringing websites and any future mirror or redirect websites.
Issues
- Whether the identified websites were prima facie “rogue websites” engaged in large-scale copyright infringement.
- Whether the Court should grant an interim injunction restraining the websites from streaming the plaintiffs’ copyrighted content.
- Whether future mirror, redirect or alphanumeric versions of rogue websites could also be blocked without requiring a fresh suit each time.
- How to balance effective copyright enforcement with intermediary neutrality and protection against excessive censorship.
Plaintiffs’ Arguments
- The defendant websites existed primarily to facilitate piracy of the plaintiffs’ films and television series.
- The identities of the website operators were concealed through privacy protections, making direct enforcement impossible.
- Rogue websites frequently shifted to mirror or redirect domains after blocking orders, frustrating judicial remedies.
- Unless a dynamic injunction was granted, copyright infringement would continue unabated through newly created domains.
Defendants’ Arguments
- The appearing Domain Name Registrars and ISPs stated that they had no objection to blocking the specifically identified rogue websites.
- However, they opposed any direction requiring them to block future websites solely upon the plaintiffs’ request, arguing that intermediaries could not themselves determine whether a website was illegal.
- They submitted that such a mechanism would improperly convert neutral intermediaries into adjudicators of copyright disputes.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court relied on the principles governing:
- Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC (temporary injunctions);
- Section 151 CPC (inherent powers);
- Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (safe harbour protection for intermediaries).
The Court reaffirmed that while copyright owners deserve effective protection against evolving online piracy, blocking mechanisms cannot vest adjudicatory powers in intermediaries or permit unilateral censorship by copyright owners.
Instead, any dynamic blocking process must preserve judicial supervision while enabling prompt action against mirror websites.
Precedent Analysis
The Court extensively relied upon:
- UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.to — defining “rogue websites” and recognising dynamic injunctions against online piracy.
- Universal City Studios Productions LLLP v. Movies123.LA
- Universal City Studios v. Mixdrop Co.
- Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. Series9.io
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
The Court reaffirmed that dynamic injunctions are permissible to prevent infringing websites from defeating judicial orders by merely changing domain names, but judicial oversight must remain central to the process.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court found that the defendant websites bore all the characteristics of “flagrantly infringing online locations” (FIOLs). Their operators were anonymous, they primarily hosted pirated copyrighted content and their activities amounted to deliberate copyright infringement.
The Court accepted that requiring copyright owners to approach the Court every time a mirror website appeared would render injunctions ineffective. However, it also recognised that neither ISPs nor DNRs should decide whether a website is illegal.
Accordingly, the Court devised a balanced mechanism:
- the plaintiffs may notify ISPs and DNRs of newly discovered mirror or redirect websites through an affidavit supported by evidence;
- ISPs and DNRs are only required to technically verify whether the new website is in fact a mirror or redirect version of an already injuncted website;
- simultaneously, the plaintiffs must file an impleadment application before the Court;
- blocking remains provisional and subject to further judicial scrutiny;
- any false or misleading affidavit by the plaintiffs would invite appropriate action by the Court.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the identified rogue websites from hosting, streaming or communicating the plaintiffs’ copyrighted content.
It also established a court-supervised dynamic injunction mechanism permitting provisional blocking of future mirror, redirect and alphanumeric websites after technical verification by intermediaries, while ensuring that the final determination remains subject to judicial oversight.
Case Details
Case: Home Box Office Inc. & Ors. v. Streamzy.to & Ors.
Court: High Court of Delhi
Case Number: CS(COMM) 740/2026
Judge: Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Date: 27 July 2026
Result: The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the identified rogue websites from infringing the plaintiffs’ copyrights and formulated a court-supervised dynamic blocking mechanism for future mirror, redirect and alphanumeric websites, subject to technical verification by intermediaries and further judicial scrutiny.
