Delhi High Court: In a present plaint filed by the Star India Private Limited (‘plaintiff’), seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringement of copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957, and appropriate directions to the arrayed authorities, Saurabh Banerjee, J., restrained any person/ entity including, but not limited to, Defendants 1 to 5 being “rogue websites”, from communicating, hosting, streaming, and/ or making available for viewing and downloading, any part of the TATA IPL 2025 matches on any electronic or digital platform in any manner whatsoever without authorization, so as to infringe the plaintiff’s intellectual property rights related to TATA IPL 2025. The Court further granted ‘dynamic+’ injunction in favour of the plaintiff to protect its copyrighted works as soon as they were infringed.
Background
The plaintiff was a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, with its registered office at Mumbai and New Delhi, and was a leading entertainment and media company engaged in the production of popular content broadcasted on its channels. The plaintiff, along with its affiliates, was also an exclusive right owner for several works broadcasted on its channels, such as, Star Sports 1, Star Sports 2, Star Plus, etc., and many of such channels broadcast sporting events in the fields of Cricket, Football, amongst others.
The plaintiff had acquired exclusive television broadcasting rights with respect to the Indian Premier League (‘IPL’) matches in India for a period of five years, starting from 2023 till 2027, from the event organizer, i.e., the Board of Control for Cricket in India (‘BCCI’) vide agreement dated 27-06-2022.
Further, vide another agreement, dated 27-06-2022 between Viacom 18 Media Private Limited and BCCI, exclusive media rights in India and television rights overseas in relation to the said IPL matches were acquired by BCCI, which were then transferred to the plaintiff vide a composite arrangement. The said composite arrangement was then approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai wherein media operations of Viacom 18 Media Private Limited and Digital 18 Media Limited were transferred to the plaintiff, including the right to use the IPL logos and other associated marks.
The cause of action first arose when Defendants 1-5, being “rogue websites” unlawfully streamed sporting events in which the plaintiff had exclusive rights without authorization from the plaintiff or the owner of rights of the said sporting events, such as the recently concluded Women’s Premier League, 2025. Defendants 6 to 10 being Domain Name Registrars (‘DNRs’) with respect to the said “rogue websites” have provided platform access to them and were also responsible for withholding and retaining information qua their creators, such as names, addresses, and the like.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that the plaintiff was seeking a ‘dynamic+’ injunction, a form of injunctive relief which was being granted by courts in similar matters in the recent years, primarily with a view to protect parties like the plaintiff, against rapidly developing online infringement platforms. The Court stated that the rights of a plaintiff, who was an intellectual property right holder, could not be rendered otiose in this world of rapidly developing technology and for that, enforcement of intellectual property rights on any social platform, including but not limited to, the internet as well along with the real world, ought to be visible and effective.
The Court stated that with the immense degree of freedom enjoyed by developers and innovators globally today, all and sundry, especially those intellectual property right holders like the present plaintiff were prone to/ might be exposed or vulnerable to the actions of the “rogue websites”. Further, if such right holders like the plaintiff, were not accorded proper protection from them.
The Court stated that on one hand, though such intellectual property right holders like the plaintiff could proceed in the normal manner, but, on the other hand, without any proper channelization, their intellectual property rights were prone to get effected by such “rogue websites”, who had no right, title and/ or interest therein. This would lead them and their facilitators to freely and blatantly exploit the rights of the right holders like the plaintiff, causing irreparable loss, damage and injury to them as also leaving them struggling on the fence exposed dangerous edge of technology.
The Court stated that as per the case set up by the plaintiff, the “rouge websites” were in flagrant infringement/facilitation of infringement as was evident from the unabashed streaming and advertising of the copyrighted content on such “rogue websites”, of which the plaintiff herein, is the right holder. Moreover, the systematic, organised and intentional nature of the infringement, and the regularity and consistency with which the said content is being updated/ uploaded on the said “rogue websites” shows the extent of the violation of the rights of the plaintiff in real time.
The Court stated that the said “rogue websites” were also employing the URL-redirection and identity masking methods as noted above, putting the plaintiff in an even more precarious condition to defend itself against their infringing actions. Under such circumstances, the defendants’ silence/ inaction to notices demonstrates the “hydra-headed” nature of these “rogue websites” which, even if blocked, multiply and resurface as alphanumeric or mirror websites within seconds.
Considering the violations that were already committed by the “rogue websites” herein, the Court saw every likelihood that such “rogue websites” would continue to stream copyrighted works to the public during the currency of TATA IPL 2025 without authorization or license from the plaintiff.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, discussions and analyses, the Court was of the view that the plaintiff was able to make out a prima facie case with the balance of convenience in its favour for grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction, not only qua the present but also qua the future, without which the plaintiff will likely suffer irreparable harm, loss, injury and prejudice which would not be compensable in terms of money.
Accordingly, the Court restrained any person/ entity including, but not limited to, Defendants 1 to 5 being “rogue websites”, as also their owners, partners, officers, and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under them from communicating, hosting, streaming, and/ or making available for viewing and downloading, any part of the TATA IPL 2025 matches on any electronic or digital platform in any manner whatsoever without authorization, so as to infringe the plaintiff’s intellectual property rights qua TATA IPL 2025.
The Court further stated that ‘dynamic+’ injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff to protect its copyrighted works as soon as they were infringed. Consequently, during the currency of the TATA IPL 2025 if, any further websites were discovered which were illegally streaming and communicating content over which the plaintiff had rights, the plaintiff would be at liberty to communicate the details of these websites to their DNRs concerned, if available, or in the alternative to Defendants 11-19, being the ISPs for blocking the said websites.
The matter would next be listed on 20-08-2025.
[Star India (P) Ltd. v. https//crichdplayer.org/, CS(COMM) 266 of 2025, decided on 25-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiff: Sidharth Chopra, Yatinder Garg, Akshay Maloo and Priyansh Kohli, Advocates.
