Introduction

The internet has transformed the way content is disseminated. Seamless and instantaneous access to information has challenged the conventional enforcement of intellectual property rights. Copyright holders now find themselves grappling with an increasingly evasive piracy landscape, tempting courts to draw a parallel to  Hydra, the Greek mythological serpentine that grows two heads for every one that is severed.

Similarly, infringing websites often reappear in new forms every time one is taken down, as mirrors, redirects, or alphanumeric variants. This constant regeneration has made conventional website-blocking orders futile, which has led critics to describe it as a never-ending game of digital “whac-a-mole”. In response, Indian courts have expanded the contours of injunctive relief, giving rise to a new spectrum of injunctions. This article explores the evolution and contours of dynamic, dynamic+, and superlative injunctions.

Rogue Website and the Expanding Scope of Injunction

Digital piracy is primarily facilitated by flagrantly infringing online locations (FIOL) or rogue websites: platforms that host or disseminate copyrighted content without authorisation. These websites (i) often operate behind a veil of secrecy, (ii) provide no contact information, (iii) are located in safe havens, and (iv) evade takedown requests. 

These websites often tend to resurface with minimal changes, such as registering a new domain name with a slightly altered spelling, replicating the same content under a different uniform resource locator (“URL”) or top-level domain (e.g., changing .ez to .ew), or redirecting users from a blocked site to a new one. As a result, copyright-holders are forced to approach courts multiple times, each time seeking injunctions against a new URL or internet protocol (“IP”) address.

Initially, Indian courts took a conservative approach in granting website-blocking injunctions. In Eros International Media Limited v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited¹, the Bombay High Court held that for a complete website to be blocked, the plaintiffs must prove that the entire content published and displayed on it is infringing. This case articulated a quantitative threshold, requiring the proportion of infringing content  be substantial enough to characterise the site as a rogue website to grant an injunction.

In contrast, the Delhi High Court in Department of Electronics and Information Technology v. Star India Private Limited² articulated a qualitative threshold, holding that where the infringing character of a website is overwhelming, blocking the entire site is justified. This shift from a quantitative to a qualitative threshold paved the way for more flexible and adaptive injunctive relief mechanisms.

Dynamic Injunction

To address the challenges of infringing websites that resurface in different forms, Indian courts have granted dynamic injunctions — injunctions structured to automatically extend to mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric variants of originally injuncted websites, thereby relieving the applicant from the burden of repeatedly approaching the court for separate orders in respect of each new IP address or URL.

The Delhi High Court in UTV Software Communication Ltd. and Ors. v. 1337x.to & Ors,³ introduced the concept of dynamic injunction in India. Drawing inspiration from the Singapore High Court’s decision in Disney Enterprise v. MI Ltd⁴, the court invoked its inherent powers and permitted the impleadment of such derivative websites under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Through this procedural mechanism, plaintiffs are required to file an affidavit and supporting evidence along with any application for impleadment, confirming that the newly added website is a derivative of the originally injuncted rogue website. Upon being satisfied that the impugned website merely provides an alternative means of accessing the same infringing content, the Joint Registrar is authorised to extend the existing injunction to such variant websites and to order the internet service providers (“ISPs”) to disable access to them. The courts, after UTV software⁵, have been vigilant in passing dynamic injunction orders to combat rogue websites⁶. 

Dynamic+ Injunction

The need for a more robust and forward-looking enforcement mechanism led to the emergence of dynamic+ injunctions. In Universal City Studios LLC. and Ors. v. Dotmovies.Baby And Ors⁷, the Delhi High Court observed that rogue websites, through the instant upload of films, series and other digital content, cause severe and immediate monetary losses. Recognising this, the Court emphasised the necessity of issuing injunctions that are dynamic qua the plaintiffs, i.e., injunctions should not be limited to works created before the filing of the suit but must also extend to content generated on a continuing, day-to-day basis. 

This gave rise to dynamic+ injunction: an injunction that operates to protect not just existing works, but also those that will be created in the future. Its objective is to ensure the timely protection of copyrighted works as they come into existence, thereby pre-empting irreparable harm to the copyright holders. Through the dynamic+ injunctions, upon filing an application for impleadment before the Joint Registrar along with an affidavit and supporting evidence seeking extension of the injunction to such websites, the injunction shall become operational against the said websites and qua such future works of the plaintiffs. 

Superlative Injunction: A Vacational Injunction?

In a further judicial innovation, the Delhi High Court in Star India Pvt Ltd v. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors⁸. evolved superlative injunctions, to counteract piracy of time-sensitive events. An application was filed by the plaintiffs seeking further directions to facilitate timely and effective action against newly impleaded rogue websites, mobile applications, and their associated domains, URLs, and user interfaces (“UI”) infringing the plaintiff’s broadcasting rights despite an ex parte ad interim injunction having been secured by them. The superlative injunction was granted in anticipation of live telecasts of the Indian Premier League 2025 and the England Tour of India 2025, both scheduled during the court’s vacation. Recognising the time-sensitive nature of infringement, the court ordered real-time blocking of infringing platforms.

The superlative injunction departs from earlier dynamic and dynamic+ injunctions in two significant aspects: (i) it extends to all modes of dissemination enabling real-time relief against infringing activities by rogue defendants not only through websites, but also through mobile applications and their associated domains, URLs, and UIs; and (ii) it dispenses with the requirement of affidavits and judicial oversight for each subsequent infringement. Instead, ISPs are directed to suspend the domain name registration of infringing domains, URLs, and UIs notified by the plaintiff on a real-time basis, for the duration of the court’s vacation. 

Conclusion

The Indian judiciary has shown immense adaptability in recognising the evasive nature of digital piracy. From conventional blocking orders to dynamic, dynamic+, and now superlative injunctions, courts have broadened the scope of injunctive relief to match the evolving modes of rogue websites. That said, superlative injunctions mark a significant procedural shift by enabling copyright holders to enforce orders by dispensing with the requirement for affidavits, thereby enabling real-time blocking. However, in prioritising the timeliness of enforcement, the measure begins to test the doctrinal boundary of nemo judex in causa sua — the principle that no one should adjudicate their own cause. It vests copyright holders with a quasi-adjudicatory role, empowering them to extend enforcement in real time. This broad discretionary power raises legitimate concerns about potential overreach, particularly when the targets of enforcement may not be rogue websites but legitimate entities such as news platforms engaged in fair use reporting of current events. As courts return from vacation, a recalibration may be necessary not only to ensure procedural fairness but also to prevent the curtailment of rights that the law otherwise protects.

[1] Eros International Media Limited v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 8199.

[2] Department of Electronics and Information Technology v. Star India Private Limited 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4160.

[3] UTV Software Communication Ltd. & Ors. v. 1337x.to & Ors. 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8002. [Hereinafter UTV Software].

[4] Disney Enterprise v. Ml Ltd., (2018) SGHC 206.

[5] UTV Software, supra note 3.

[6] Star India Pvt. Ltd v. Live Flixhub.Net, CS(COMM) 157/2022, Star India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Moviemad.biz & Ors CS(COMM) 471/2019, Star India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Extramovies.host & Ors. CS(COMM) 195/2019

[7] Universal City Studios LLC. and Ors. v. Dotmovies.Baby And Ors 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4955.

[8] Star India Pvt Ltd v. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors. CS(COMM) 108/2025.