By Lucy Rana and Nikita Rana
In Home Box Office Inc & Ors. v. Streamzy.to & Ors. (CS(COMM) 740/2026, 2026:DHC:5967; order dated 27 July 2026), Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani granted an ad-interim injunction against a cluster of rogue streaming websites and, more significantly, refined the mechanism by which such injunctions are extended to the mirror, redirect and alphanumeric sites that predictably follow. The order’s contribution lies in a single, disciplined distinction: between the technical verification that an intermediary may perform, and the adjudicatory determination that belongs to the court alone.
The Case in Brief
The plaintiffs, a group of production houses, alleged that thirty defendant websites were streaming their cinematographic works without licence sometimes even before release. The remaining defendants were arrayed by function: domain name registrars (DNRs), internet service providers (ISPs), and the Department of Telecommunications and MeitY. Applying the settled test from UTV Software v. 1337X.to, the Court found the thirty sites bore the hallmarks of ‘Flagrantly Infringing Online Locations’ (FIOLs) masked registrant details, no traceable contacts, and content that was, prima facie, overwhelmingly the plaintiffs’ unlicensed work. This was not incidental infringement; the sites’ primary purpose was to facilitate it.
| Protecting a film or streaming catalogue in India?
Dynamic injunctions are among the most effective tools against online piracy if deployed correctly. Our IP enforcement team can advise on protecting your titles. Speak to us. |
Real Problem: Sites That Clone Themselves. Why Blocking One Rogue Site Is Never Enough
The difficulty the Court confronted is familiar to every rights holder: block a rogue site today, and its content resurfaces tomorrow on a near-identical clone with a slightly altered domain. The plaintiff is left chasing a moving target, and an injunction, however sound, is frustrated with ease. The dynamic injunction developed in this Court’s jurisprudence to keep pace with that ‘hydra-headed’ conduct exists precisely so that a rights holder need not commence proceedings afresh each time a mirror appears.
What the Rights Holders Asked For and Why the Court Hesitated
The plaintiffs sought a broad extension: that any further infringing sites discovered during the proceedings be blocked by ISPs and DNRs merely on being notified by the plaintiffs on affidavit. Two registrars, appearing in the matter, said they had no hesitation in blocking rogue sites but flagged a genuine problem as neutral intermediaries, they would be asked to exercise blocking powers without any administrative or judicial order behind them. The Court accepted that the plaintiffs’ apprehension was real, yet was equally unwilling to hand either the plaintiffs or the intermediaries a carte blanche to decide, on their own, which sites should be blocked.
The Line the Court Drew: Technical Verification vs Adjudicatory Determination
The resolution is the heart of the order. An ISP or DNR, the Court held, is not equipped or authorised to decide whether a website is ‘rogue’ that is an adjudicatory question. Nor may a plaintiff arrogate that decision to itself. What the Court delegated to the intermediary was something narrower and technical: to verify whether a newly identified site is, in fact, a mirror, redirect or alphanumeric variant of a site already injuncted.
What ISP or Registrar May Do
Where the plaintiffs discover such a variant, they may furnish the concerned ISP or DNR, on affidavit and with supporting documentation, particulars showing the site is prima facie a mirror of an injuncted defendant. The intermediary then technically verifies whether it is indeed such a variant and, if so, enforces the existing injunction against it as a pro-tem measure. Simultaneously, the plaintiffs must file an application to implead that site in the suit, for the Court’s consideration.
What Stays With the Court
The ultimate determination whether a site is liable to be blocked as a rogue website continues to rest with the Court, and cannot be left to the unilateral assessment of the plaintiffs or the sole satisfaction of an intermediary. The blocking an intermediary performs is provisional, subject to further directions, and open to correction through the impleadment application the plaintiffs are obliged to file.
| Facing clones of a site you already had blocked?
The new mechanism can reach mirror sites quickly but the affidavit, evidence and impleadment steps must be right. Ask our team to handle it. |
Safe Harbour Preserved and the Guardrails Against Misuse (Safe Harbour as a Design Constraint)
The Court was alive to the intermediary’s statutory position. Under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, an ISP or DNR enjoys ‘safe harbour’ only while it acts as a strictly neutral conduit; it cannot be clothed with discretion to block on a party’s mere asking (Shreya Singhal v. Union of India). By confining the intermediary’s role to technical verification of a mirror rather than any discretion over whether to block the order keeps that neutrality, and thus safe harbour, intact.
The guardrails cut the other way too. A false or non-bona-fide assertion by the plaintiffs in an affidavit to an intermediary or an application to the Court invites strictures. An ISP or DNR retains the liberty to decline and approach the Court rather than block. And all such blocking remains pro-tem, subject to the Court’s further orders. The mechanism is fast, but it is not unsupervised.
What This Means for Rights Holders in India and Abroad
For content owners studios, OTT platforms, sports-rights holders the order strengthens a remedy that already makes India an attractive forum for anti-piracy enforcement. It offers a route to reach mirror and redirect clones quickly, without a fresh suit for each, while keeping the legal characterisation of a site where it belongs: with the Court. For foreign rights holders in particular, the architecture is worth understanding the interplay of rights holder, registrar, ISP and the DoT/MeitY notification, and the evidentiary and impleadment steps that make the mechanism work. How to structure enforcement for a specific catalogue, and how to satisfy the order’s conditions without inviting strictures, are matters that reward experienced counsel.
| Rethinking your anti-piracy strategy?
The tools are evolving quickly. The new route can reach clones quickly, but the paperwork and evidence must be right. Cross-border content, Indian enforcement For global catalogues, the details of Indian practice decide outcomes. We help rights holders get them right. Reach Out to Us Whether you’re a studio, OTT platform or broadcaster, our IP enforcement team can build and run your anti-piracy strategy in India. Fast action makes all the difference against streaming piracy. As piracy adapts, so must enforcement. Our IP Practice works on protecting your content in India and beyond. From dynamic injunctions to end-to-end anti-piracy strategy, our IP enforcement team acts for rights holders in India and worldwide. Contact us to protect your content. Write to us for Trademark & Copyright Piracy Litigation and strategy in India at info@ssrana.com |
Frequently Asked Questions
Anti-Piracy Balance FAQ
No. The Court was careful to limit intermediaries to a technical check confirming whether a newly identified site is a mirror, redirect or alphanumeric clone of a site the Court has already injuncted. Deciding whether a site is ‘rogue’ in the first place remains with the Court. Whether a given site meets the technical or the legal threshold is fact-specific, and getting the characterisation and process right is where advice matters.
In substance, yes you may furnish the ISP or registrar an affidavit with supporting evidence that a site is a mirror of an injuncted one, and it can be blocked as a temporary measure. But you must simultaneously apply to implead that site in the suit, and the block stays subject to the Court. The mechanism is powerful but conditional, so it is worth setting up correctly rather than assuming it runs automatically.
The order is designed to avoid that. Because the intermediary only verifies whether a site is technically a clone and exercises no discretion over whether to block its neutrality, and therefore its safe harbour under the IT Act, is preserved. How this plays out for a particular intermediary’s processes is a question worth reviewing with counsel, especially given the liberty the order gives intermediaries to decline and approach the Court.
The Court built in consequences: a false, baseless or non-bona-fide assertion by the plaintiffs — whether in an affidavit to an intermediary or an application to the Court can invite strictures. A wrongly blocked site also has a route to the Court. Because the downside of overreach is real, the safest course for rights holders is disciplined, well-evidenced use of the mechanism, guided by counsel.
It strengthens a remedy that makes India a practical forum for enforcing against India-accessible piracy of your content, including fast action against mirror sites. But the architecture rights holder, registrars, ISPs and the DoT/MeitY notification and the evidentiary and impleadment steps take local know-how to navigate. How best to protect a global catalogue in India is exactly the kind of question to plan with Indian counsel ahead of a major release.