HBO Piracy Case: Dynamic Injunction Issued Against 30 Websites By Delhi HC
Delhi High Court restrains 30 rogue websites from streaming HBO’s copyrighted content and lays down a technical-verification mechanism for ISPs and registrars to block mirror sites without turning them into adjudicators.
Delhi HC Restrains 30 Rogue Websites From Streaming HBO Content, Frames Rule On Blocking Mirror Sites
The Delhi High Court has granted an ad-interim injunction restraining thirty “rogue websites” from streaming or hosting copyrighted content belonging to Home Box Office Inc and its co-plaintiffs, while crafting a fresh mechanism to tackle websites that resurface as mirrors, redirects or alphanumeric clones after being blocked.
The order was passed byJustice Anup Jairam Bhambhanion July 27, 2026, in a suit filed by HBO against Streamzy.to and sixty other defendants, including domain name registrars, internet service providers, the Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.
Appearing for the plaintiffs, advocate Saikrishna Rajagopal, along with Suhasini Raina, Raghav Goyal, Aditya Sing Thakur and Affan Moin, argued that defendants one to thirty were carrying, broadcasting or streaming HBO’s motion pictures and shows without any licence, sometimes even before their official release. He submitted that defendants thirty-one to fifty were the domain name registrars who had registered these websites, defendants fifty-one to fifty-nine were internet service providers, while defendants sixty and sixty-one were the DoT and MEITY.
Relying on the Delhi High Court’s earlier ruling in UTV Software Communication Ltd. & Ors. v. 1337X.To & Ors., Rajagopal argued that the websites bore all the hallmarks of “flagrantly infringing online locations.” The court agreed, noting that the registrant details of the defendant websites were masked, no traceable contact information was available, and the content hosted was, on a prima facie view, “overwhelmingly unlicensed cinematographic work of the plaintiffs.”The court held this was “not a case of incidental infringement, but one where the primary purpose of the websites appears to be to facilitate infringement of the plaintiffs’ copyright.”
Appearing for defendants thirty-one and thirty-nine, advocates Kruttika Vijay, Harshitha Rathod and Suvarna Singh, along with Shweta Sahu and Deeksha Pokhriyal, told the court that they had no objection to blocking the rogue websites named in the plaint. However, they flagged a concern over the plaintiffs’ request for a blanket order covering any future mirror or redirect websites, arguing that this would force ISPs and DNRs to block sites without any judicial or administrative order, undermining their position as neutral intermediaries.
The court agreed that the plaintiffs’ apprehension was genuine, since rogue websites routinely resurface through mirror, redirect or alphanumeric variants soon after being injuncted, effectively turning enforcement into a chase after a “moving target.” At the same time, it held it would be wary of granting a “carte blanche” to plaintiffs, ISPs or DNRs to unilaterally expand the injunction. Surveying its own past orders, including those in the Movies123.LA, Terrimeridooriyan.com, Moviebox.ph and Mixdrop cases, the court found that this was not the discretion to decide whether a website should be blocked, since “an intermediary cannot be conferred with any discretion to block websites merely on the asking of a party,” in light of the safe harbour protections available to intermediaries under Section <a href="https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_45_76_00001_200021_1517807324077&orderno=105″ rel=”nofollow noopener” target=”_blank”>79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as explained in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.
The court struck a balance, directing that where plaintiffs discover a mirror, redirect or alphanumeric website of an already-injuncted site, they may furnish an affidavit with supporting evidence to the concerned ISP or DNR, who must then “technically verify” whether the new website is indeed linked to the blocked one, and if so, enforce the injunction as a “pro-tem measure.” Simultaneously, the plaintiffs must file an application to formally implead such websites before the court. The judgment clarified that any false or baseless claim by the plaintiffs “would invite appropriate orders from the court,” and that an ISP or DNR retains the liberty to approach the court against a blocking request it disagrees with.
The court also directed the plaintiffs to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3of the CPC within ten days, and listed the matter before the Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings on October 28, 2026, while keeping the earlier scheduled hearing date of July 31, 2026, intact.
Case Title: Home Box Office Inc & Ors. v. Streamzy.to & Ors.
Date of Judgment: July 27, 2026
Bench: Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani
