Landmark ruling under Delhi High Court IPR Division Rules enables swift action against copyright infringement by anonymous piracy sites, directing ISPs to block access and allowing dynamic injunctions against mirror sites.
In a significant judgment dated October 7, 2026, the Delhi High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division (IPD) delivered a strong verdict against a slew of notorious piracy websites, including 123movieshub.tc and others, holding them liable for rampant copyright infringement of popular cinematograph films and audio-visual works owned by leading studios such as Universal City Studios LLC, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Columbia Pictures, Netflix Studios, Paramount Pictures, and Disney Enterprises.
The civil suit (CS(COMM) 116 of 2022), filed by six major American film and entertainment companies, accused 34 websites and their subsequent iterations (totaling defendants 1 to 34 and later 47 to 75) of illegally hosting and streaming copyrighted content including famous titles like "Aquaman," "Wonder Woman," "Stranger Things," and "Finding Dory," without any license or authorization.
Notably, the defendant websites operated anonymously, masking registrant details and evading legal notices, thereby qualifying as "rogue websites" under the legal test established by the Delhi High Court in UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.to. The Court applied factors such as the primary purpose of facilitating infringement, flagrancy of violation, non-responsiveness to takedown notices, and existence of redirect or mirror domains to determine that these websites had no real prospect of successfully defending the infringement claims.
The Court faced two pivotal questions: whether it could pass a summary judgment without a formal application under Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and whether oral evidence was necessary to decide the case. Relying on Rule 27 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, the Court affirmed its authority to pass summary judgment without a specific application if the defendants have no real prospect of defending the claim and no compelling reason exists to delay the trial. It further held that oral evidence was unnecessary when the plaintiffs' pleadings, supported by investigator affidavits and documentary evidence, remained uncontested due to the defendants' absence.
The Court permanently restrained the defendants and all associated persons from hosting, streaming, reproducing, distributing, or communicating any cinematograph works belonging to the plaintiffs. It also directed Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and government departments including the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to block access to the offending websites within stipulated timeframes.
Importantly, the Court granted liberty to plaintiffs to implead mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric websites that merely provide new means of accessing the blocked piracy sites, thereby addressing the common "hydra-headed" problem of piracy sites resurfacing under new domains.
The ruling reiterates the Court's consistent approach in similar cases where summary judgments were passed against piracy platforms, emphasizing a balance between preserving a free and open internet and the need to curb digital piracy. The judgment also clarifies that ISPs and regulatory authorities have the power and duty to act expeditiously against rogue websites that flagrantly infringe copyrights.
This judgment strengthens the enforcement landscape for copyright holders in India, providing a robust mechanism for tackling online piracy swiftly and effectively. It underscores the judiciary's commitment to protecting intellectual property rights against modern digital threats posed by anonymous and evasive online piracy entities.
Bottom Line:
Copyright infringement by rogue websites - Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, Rule 27 empowers Court to pass summary judgment without a specific application under Order XIIIA CPC - Where defendant websites, despite service, remain absent and plaint averments with supporting documents remain uncontroverted, plaintiffs need not lead oral evidence - Rogue websites can be permanently injuncted and ISPs directed to block access, with liberty to implead mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites.
Statutory provision(s):
Copyright Act, 1957 Sections 2(f), 5, 13, 14(d), 17, 40, 51; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order VIII Rule 5(2), Order XIIIA; Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 Rule 27; Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Universal City Studios LLC. v. 123movieshub.tc, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2999867
