Delhi High Court Grants Dynamic Injunction Against 30 Piracy Websites in HBO Copyright Case

The Delhi High Court on July 27, 2026, granted a dynamic injunction against 30 groups of rogue websites in a copyright infringement suit filed by Home Box Office Inc. (HBO) and its co-plaintiffs in Home Box Office Inc. v. Streamzy.to & Ors. (CS(COMM) 740/2026). Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani issued the ad-interim order restraining the identified websites from streaming, hosting, or making available HBO's copyrighted films and television programmes, while simultaneously crafting a framework for blocking mirror, redirect, and alphanumeric clone websites that resurface after the initial blocking order. Crucially, the Court held that the final determination of whether a website is a "rogue website" engaged in copyright infringement must rest with the Court alone, not with plaintiffs or internet intermediaries.

The Problem of Digital Piracy and Mirror Websites

Digital piracy in India has evolved into a sophisticated operation. Rogue websites, once blocked by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) pursuant to court orders, routinely resurface under slightly modified domain names, referred to as mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric websites. For instance, a blocked website at "piracy.to" might reappear as "piracy2.to" or "p1racy.to" within hours. This whack-a-mole problem has long plagued copyright holders, who must repeatedly approach the Court for fresh orders against each new iteration. HBO submitted before Justice Bhambhani that the identified websites made its copyrighted content, including popular films and television series, available immediately after release and, in some instances, even before official release. The suit named 61 defendants, including the operators of the rogue websites, domain name registrars (DNRs), ISPs, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).

The Dynamic Injunction Framework

Justice Bhambhani's order builds upon the concept of dynamic injunctions first introduced in Indian copyright law by the Delhi High Court in UTV Software Communications Ltd. v. 1337x.to, where the Court defined the term "rogue website" and identified nine non-exhaustive factors for making such a determination. The concept was further refined in Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. Moviesmod.bet (2024), where the Court granted what it termed a "Dynamic+" injunction, permitting copyright holders to subsequently implead mirror or redirect websites of already-injuncted platforms. In the HBO case, Justice Bhambhani authorised a structured process for addressing mirror websites. When plaintiffs discover a mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric website of an already-injuncted site, they may furnish an affidavit with supporting evidence to the concerned ISP or DNR. The intermediary must then conduct a limited, technical verification to confirm whether the new website is linked to the blocked one. If verified, the ISP may enforce the injunction as a pro-tem (temporary) measure, blocking access to the mirror site pending formal court confirmation.

The Judicial Safeguard: Courts Alone Determine Infringement

The most significant aspect of the order is Justice Bhambhani's emphatic clarification that while ISPs and DNRs may be directed to block mirror websites upon technical verification, they cannot be conferred with adjudicatory discretion to independently determine whether a newly identified website is engaged in copyright infringement. This determination, the Court held, must continue to rest with the Court alone. The ruling draws a careful line between two competing concerns: the practical need for swift blocking of mirror sites to prevent irreparable harm to copyright holders, and the constitutional imperative that judicial functions not be delegated to private intermediaries. This safeguard is particularly important in the Indian context, where trademark and copyright disputes often involve nuanced questions of fair use, licensing, and transformative use that require judicial expertise.

Significance for Indian Intellectual Property Law

The HBO ruling represents the latest evolution in a line of Delhi High Court orders that have progressively refined the dynamic injunction mechanism for copyright protection in the digital age. Unlike conventional injunctions that require the plaintiff to return to court each time a new infringing website appears, dynamic injunctions provide a scalable enforcement tool. The mechanism is particularly critical for streaming platforms and content creators whose works lose commercial value rapidly once leaked online. Earlier orders in the Warner Bros. and Netflix case had established the precedent, and the HBO order now adds a structured, transparent process with judicial oversight. The Delhi High Court's restraining order in the Zepto trademark case similarly demonstrates how courts are actively developing enforcement tools in intellectual property disputes. The order also has implications for the trademark enforcement landscape, as the dynamic injunction framework could potentially be adapted for other forms of online intellectual property infringement. Brands and rights holders should take note of the procedural framework outlined in the order, which provides a replicable model for seeking similar relief in future suits. The process for opposing a trademark application before the Registrar and obtaining injunctions through litigation continue to be essential tools in protecting intellectual property rights in India.

Key Takeaways

1. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani of the Delhi High Court granted a dynamic injunction on July 27, 2026, restraining 30 rogue website groups from streaming HBO's copyrighted content.

2. The order creates a structured mechanism for blocking mirror, redirect, and alphanumeric clone websites: plaintiffs furnish an affidavit to ISPs, who conduct technical verification before blocking as a pro-tem measure.

3. The Court held that the final determination of whether a website is a rogue website engaged in copyright infringement must rest with the Court alone, not with plaintiffs or intermediaries.

4. The ruling builds on the dynamic injunction precedent established in UTV Software Communications Ltd. v. 1337x.to and refined in Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. Moviesmod.bet (2024).

5. The framework provides a scalable enforcement model for copyright holders while preserving judicial oversight, balancing swift enforcement against the risk of overblocking legitimate websites.