Court restrains 11 pirate websites from unauthorized streaming and distribution of the film, extending protection to future works under the Copyright Act, 1957
In a significant ruling aimed at curbing online piracy, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Jyoti Singh, on September 15, 2026, granted an ex parte ad interim injunction to Amazon Seller Services Private Limited against 11 rogue websites accused of unauthorized streaming and distribution of copyrighted content. The suit pertains to the upcoming cinematograph film 'VIBE', scheduled for theatrical release on September 18, 2026.
The plaintiff, Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, holds exclusive copyright ownership of the film 'VIBE', produced under agreements with Drongo Films LLP. The film has garnered considerable public anticipation, evident from its trailer's 48 million views on YouTube. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant websites, including cinevood.love, pvrplay.online, and mkvcinemas.hn, among others, have a history of piracy, systematically uploading and streaming infringing content without authorization.
The court acknowledged the urgency of the matter given the imminent release of the film and the substantial commercial interests at stake. It noted that piracy during the theatrical window severely undermines the film's box office revenue and subsequent licensing to OTT platforms and television. Further, the defendants were found to be operating with masked identities, making enforcement challenging.
Relying on provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957-particularly Sections 14(d) and 51-and precedents including the Supreme Court's judgment in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi (2024), the court held that the plaintiff is entitled to protect its exclusive rights to communicate the film to the public. Importantly, the court granted a dynamic injunction extending to future works of the plaintiff, recognizing the evolving nature of piracy by "hydra-headed" rogue websites. This injunction covers current and new websites linked by name, branding, or content source to the infringing entities.
The court ordered domain suspension and blocking of the identified websites within 36 hours and directed Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and government departments like DoT and MeitY to ensure compliance. The defendants were also directed to disclose any available contact and payment details to assist in enforcement. The plaintiff was empowered to seek blocking of newly discovered infringing sites on a real-time basis.
This ruling aligns with the judiciary's proactive stance against digital piracy, balancing the need for swift relief with procedural fairness. It underscores the courts' readiness to employ innovative remedies such as dynamic injunctions to protect intellectual property rights in the digital age.
Bottom Line:
Copyright infringement - Grant of dynamic injunction against rogue websites to prevent unauthorized streaming, downloading, or distribution of copyrighted content, including future works, to curb piracy and protect copyright holder's interests.
Statutory provision(s):
Copyright Act, 1957 Sections 14(d), 17, 51(a), 51(b); Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 12-A; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Sections 80, 151; Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC
