Delhi High Court Orders ISPs, Registrars to Block Sites Illegally Streaming Stranger Things and Friends
Delhi High Court Orders ISPs, Registrars to Block Sites Illegally Streaming Stranger Things and Friends
Introduction
In a strong push against online piracy, the Delhi High Court has ordered the blocking of several websites found to be illegally streaming popular films and television series such as Stranger Things, Friends, The Squid Game, Batman and The Jungle Book. Justice Tejas Karia granted a Dynamic+ injunction in favour of leading global entertainment companies, recognising the urgent need for adaptable judicial remedies to counter rapidly evolving piracy networks.
Factual Background
The plaintiffs Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc, Netflix, Apple, Disney, and Crunchyroll are global entertainment companies and copyright owners of numerous films and television series.
They approached the Court alleging that several rogue websites were illegally hosting and streaming their copyrighted content in real time, while also permitting users to download such content without authorisation. Despite issuing repeated take-down notices, the plaintiffs contended that the piracy websites continued to infringe their works, causing substantial commercial losses.
Procedural Background
The plaintiffs, members of the Motion Picture Association, instituted a copyright infringement suit before the Delhi High Court. The matter was heard by Justice Tejas Karia, who examined the request for urgent injunctive relief in light of the persistent and recurring nature of online piracy.
Issues
1. Whether the continued streaming and downloading of copyrighted content by rogue websites amounts to copyright infringement.
2. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a Dynamic+ injunction covering not only existing infringing websites but also their future variations.
3. Whether domain name registrars and internet service providers could be directed to take immediate blocking and disclosure measures.
Contentions of the Parties
Plaintiff: The plaintiffs submitted that they are the undisputed owners of copyright in the films and series being pirated. It was argued that the infringing websites were streaming the content on a real-time basis and enabling downloads, thereby causing severe financial and reputational harm. They emphasised that piracy websites frequently resurface through mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric variants, rendering ordinary injunctions ineffective and necessitating a Dynamic+ injunction.
Defendants: Domain name registrars appeared through counsel. No substantive defence was recorded from the operators of the infringing websites.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Court recognised the “hydra-headed” nature of online piracy, noting that infringing websites often reappear in altered forms shortly after being taken down. The Court observed that copyright protection must operate from the moment a work is created, particularly in the digital age where unauthorised uploads can occur almost instantaneously.
The Court accepted that the plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case of copyright infringement. It noted that the unauthorised streaming and downloading of copyrighted works could result in irreparable loss, both financial and otherwise, if not restrained swiftly.
In this context, the Court found it appropriate to grant a Dynamic+ injunction, enabling the plaintiffs to implead future mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric variants of the infringing websites without returning to court repeatedly.
Decision
The Delhi High Court granted a Dynamic+ injunction restraining the infringing websites from hosting, streaming, or making available the plaintiffs’ copyrighted content. The Court directed domain name registrars to lock and suspend the infringing domains within 72 hours and to furnish Basic Subscriber Information in a sealed cover. Internet Service Providers were also directed to block access to the identified websites within the same timeframe, ensuring swift and effective enforcement against online piracy.
In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Siddharth Chopra, Mr. Raghav Goyal, Ms. Mehr. Sidhu, Mr. A. Moin and Mr. Aditya Singh Thakur, Advocates. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Mr. Yash Raj and Ms. Geetanjali Vishwanathan, Advocates for D-48 & 56.
