Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction To Star India Against 1XBet-Linked Rogue Websites For Illegal Streaming Of ICC Champions Trophy 2025
Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction To Star India Against 1XBet-Linked Rogue Websites For Illegal Streaming Of ICC Champions Trophy 2025
Introduction
The present commercial suit was instituted by the Plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining Defendants No. 1 to 24 from infringing the Plaintiff’s exclusive broadcasting and reproduction rights in relation to the ICC Champions Trophy 2025. The Plaintiff also sought ancillary reliefs against domain name registrars, internet service providers, government authorities and banks to prevent unauthorized streaming, hosting and dissemination of the sporting event.
Factual Background
The subject matter of the suit concerns the “ICC Champions Trophy 2025”, comprising 12 matches, two semi-finals and a final, scheduled between 19.02.2025 and 09.03.2025 in Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates. The Plaintiff is an established entertainment and media company engaged in production and broadcasting of content across multiple television channels and digital platforms. It operates and distributes several well-known sports and entertainment channels and owns and operates online streaming platforms including Hotstar and JioCinema, along with their corresponding mobile applications.
The Plaintiff entered into a Media Rights Agreement dated 27.08.2022 with the International Cricket Council (ICC) for exclusive digital media rights and television rights in India for various domestic and international cricket competitions for the period 2024–2027. By virtue of this agreement and Section 37 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the Plaintiff enjoys exclusive broadcast reproduction rights in respect of the Event.
The grievance of the Plaintiff was that Defendants No. 1 to 24, described as rogue websites, were illegally hosting, streaming, communicating and disseminating the matches of the Event without authorization. The Plaintiff alleged that these websites were also engaged in betting and gambling services and were unlawfully exploiting the Event to attract traffic and generate revenue. Domain registrars (Defendants No. 25 to 31), ISPs/TSPs (Defendants No. 32 to 39), banks (Defendants No. 40 and 41), and governmental authorities including the Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology were impleaded to enable effective enforcement of blocking, suspension and freezing measures.
Procedural Background
On 28.02.2025, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Defendants No. 1 to 24 from hosting, streaming, screening or otherwise communicating the Event without authorization. Directions were issued to the domain name registrars to lock and suspend the impugned domain names and to ISPs/TSPs to block access to the offending websites. Appropriate directions were also issued to other impleaded authorities.
On 23.09.2025, the learned Joint Registrar recorded that all Defendants had been served. However, none of the Defendants filed written statements within the maximum permissible period, and their right to file written statements was closed. As none appeared for Defendants No. 1 to 41, they proceeded against ex parte.
Issues
1. Whether the Plaintiff holds exclusive broadcasting and digital media rights in respect of ICC Champions Trophy 2025.
2. Whether Defendants No. 1 to 24 infringed the Plaintiff’s broadcast reproduction rights under Section 37 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against the rogue websites.
4. Whether ancillary directions issued at the interim stage warranted confirmation in the final decree.
Contentions of the Parties
The Plaintiff contended that it had acquired exclusive digital and television rights from the ICC for the relevant period and was entitled to exclusive broadcast reproduction rights. It was submitted that Defendants No. 1 to 24 were unauthorizedly streaming and communicating the Event to the public, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s statutory rights and causing substantial financial and reputational harm. The Plaintiff asserted that it had invested significant consideration in acquiring media rights and expected to recover revenue through legitimate broadcasting and streaming platforms.
Despite service of summons, none of the Defendants entered or contested the suit. No written statements or affidavits of admission/denial were filed.
Reasoning and Analysis
The bench of Justice Jyoti Singh noted that the plaint was duly verified and supported by affidavit. In the absence of any written statements from Defendants No. 1 to 24, the averments in the plaint were deemed admitted. Further, as no affidavits of admission/denial were filed in respect of the Plaintiff’s documents, the documents stood deemed admitted under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
From the material on record, the Court was satisfied that the Plaintiff had acquired exclusive digital and television media rights under the agreement dated 27.08.2022 and enjoyed broadcast reproduction rights under Section 37 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Court observed that the rogue websites were indulging in unauthorized dissemination and communication of the matches and were exploiting the Event for betting and gambling activities.
The illegal streaming of the Event amounted to infringement of the Plaintiff’s exclusive rights and caused irreparable harm. The Court held that the Plaintiff had made out a case for grant of permanent injunction. Since the Plaintiff confined its prayer to permanent injunction and did not press other reliefs, the Court proceeded to grant relief accordingly.
Decision
A decree of permanent injunction was passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against Defendants No. 1 to 24 in terms of prayer clause 61(i) of the plaint, restraining them from infringing the Plaintiff’s exclusive broadcasting and reproduction rights in relation to the ICC Champions Trophy 2025. The Registry was directed to draw up the decree sheet. The suit, along with pending applications, stood disposed of.
In this case the plaintiff was represented by Ms. Ishi Singh, Advocate
