Delhi High Court Grants HBO Temporary Injunction Against 30 Rogue Websites In Copyright Suit

The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of Home Box Office Inc. (HBO) against 30 rogue websites allegedly streaming its copyrighted films and shows without authorisation.

The court has also directed internet service providers (ISPs) and domain name registrars (DNRs) to technically verify whether any newly identified website is a mirror, redirect or alphanumeric version of the injuncted websites and, if so, enforce the injunction against it as a pro-tem measure, while HBO moves the court to implead those websites.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani was hearing an application in a suit filed by HBO against Streamzy.to and connected defendants.

HBO submitted that the 30 websites were "rogue websites" carrying the plaintiffs' motion pictures without any licence, sometimes streaming films immediately upon release and, in some cases, even before release.

It was submitted that the DNRs had registered these websites, the ISPs provided internet access to them, while the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) were also arrayed as parties.

HBO argued that while the identities of the DNRs were known, the actual registrants and operators of the infringing websites remained masked behind privacy-protection policies, making it impossible to proceed against them directly.

Relying on the Coordinate Bench decision in UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.to, the court examined the settled factors for identifying a "Flagrantly Infringing Online Location" (FIOL), including whether the primary purpose of a website is to facilitate infringement, whether registrant details are masked and the flagrancy of the infringement.

Applying this test, the court found, "This is, therefore, 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."

The principal dispute centred on HBO's request that any newly discovered mirror, redirect or alphanumeric version of the injuncted websites be blocked by ISPs and DNRs upon being notified by affidavit.

Counsel appearing for two of the DNRs, while raising no objection to blocking the identified rogue websites, submitted that such a mechanism would place ISPs and DNRs in a difficult position by requiring intermediaries to exercise blocking powers "without any administrative or judicial order."

The court found merit in both concerns. It noted that there was every chance the rogue websites would reappear as mirror or redirect websites to frustrate the injunction, observing that this "would make the plaintiff chase a moving target."

At the same time, it declined to give either intermediaries or HBO unchecked authority to block websites, observing,

"It is not the function of such intermediary to determine whether any particular website is a 'rogue website'. Equally, under the guise of a blocking direction, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to assume unto themselves the authority to identify and disable websites."

The court clarified that it was not delegating any adjudicatory discretion to ISPs or DNRs, but only a limited technical function,

"What the court is delegating is not the discretion for an ISP or a DNR to decide whether or not to block a website; but only the task of technically verifying if a given website, that is claimed by the plaintiffs to be rogue, is indeed a mirror/alphanumeric/re-direct website of the defendant websites."

The court granted, thereafter an ad-interim injunction till the next date of hearing, while directing that any extension of the blocking order to mirror, redirect or alphanumeric websites would operate subject to the safeguards laid down in the order.

The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar on October 28, 2026 and will be heard by the court on July 31, 2026.