Plaintiff Sporta Technologies empowered to notify infringing websites in real-time for immediate blocking without repeated court applications, preserving broadcast rights during live events
In a landmark decision on October 1, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, has granted a "dynamic+ injunction" in favor of Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd., operator of the FanCode digital streaming platform. The judgment addresses the pervasive issue of unauthorized live streaming of sporting events and aims to provide a robust and efficient mechanism to curb online piracy in real time.
Sporta Technologies holds exclusive broadcasting rights in India for several high-profile sporting events, including Formula 1, IPL cricket, and other tournaments under seven licensing agreements collectively referred to as "the Agreements." The plaintiff had already secured an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining defendants-including unknown infringers (John Does) and specific rogue websites-from unauthorized streaming and trademark infringement related to the FanCode brand.
However, the earlier injunction was found inadequate in dealing with the rapidly evolving landscape of online piracy. Rogue websites frequently circumvent blocking orders by quickly shifting to new domain names, mirror sites, sub-domains, and alphanumeric variants, making repeated court applications impractical given the fleeting commercial value of live events.
Recognizing this challenge, the Court approved a dynamic+ injunction, a mechanism that allows Sporta Technologies to directly notify domain registrars, hosting providers, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and relevant authorities about newly discovered infringing websites and URLs without filing fresh court applications each time. The Court emphasized that such communications must be supported by detailed evidence, including screenshots, recordings, and IP addresses, and must specify the sporting event, date, and time of infringement detection.
Upon receiving such notifications, domain registrars and hosting entities are directed to suspend or deregister infringing domains, while ISPs must block access to them within 24 hours. Regulatory authorities are required to issue corresponding notifications within 36 hours. The Court explicitly preserved its ultimate supervisory control, ensuring that adjudicatory decisions remain with the judiciary and are not delegated to intermediaries or the plaintiff unilaterally.
The Court referred to prior judgments, including the UTV Software case and Universal City Studios v. Dotmovies Baby, highlighting the necessity of effective injunctions that address both current and future infringements, especially given the speed and agility with which pirate websites operate. The decision also builds upon the Court's earlier rulings in live sports streaming cases such as Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Jiolive.tv, where real-time blocking mechanisms were found critical to protecting broadcast reproduction rights.
Importantly, the Court balanced the need for expedited relief with safeguards against misuse. The plaintiff must file affidavits detailing each communication to the intermediaries, and any mistakenly blocked non-infringing websites may apply to the Court for relief. The judgment reiterates that intermediaries act as neutral entities and are not to assume adjudicatory roles.
This ruling is a significant step in strengthening the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the digital age, particularly for live sports content where delays in blocking unauthorized streams can cause irreparable commercial harm. It sets a precedent for other rights holders seeking to protect content against fast-evolving online piracy tactics while maintaining judicial oversight and procedural fairness.
Bottom Line:
Intellectual Property - Copyright and broadcast reproduction rights - Live sporting events - Dynamic+ injunction - Plaintiff holding exclusive streaming rights over sporting events can be permitted to notify newly discovered infringing websites, mirror/redirect/alphanumeric variants, sub-domains and URLs directly to domain registrars, hosting entities, ISPs and authorities for real-time blocking without filing fresh application each time - Safeguards required by way of supporting material, identification of event, date and time of detection - Ultimate control of Court preserved and no adjudicatory discretion conferred on intermediaries.
Statutory provision(s):
Copyright Act, 1957; Trade Marks Act, 1999; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Section 151); Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 79)
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. John Doe, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2994153
