Introduction
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court1 granted superlative injunction which has been referred to as an extended version of dynamic+ injunction while deciding an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, filed by Star India Pvt. Ltd. ("the Plaintiff") against IPTV Smarter Pro and others ("the Defendants") concerning copyright infringement by the Defendants for the content produced and owned by the Plaintiff.
Facts of the Case
The Plaintiff had filed a suit before Delhi High Court, seeking a permanent injunction against Defendants from infringing the copyright and broadcast reproduction rights of the Plaintiff. Initially, the Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction on 10.02.2025,2 against the Defendants mentioned in the memo of parties and directed the domain name registrars and internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to infringing domains and URLs. In the said order, the Court further directed that if Plaintiff discovers any other domain infringing the exclusive rights of the Plaintiff, it may then be reported to the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial), who shall then extend the interim injunction orders to such domains as well.
Subsequently, the Plaintiff discovered further infringing entities including three rogue mobile applications and 16 rogue websites and accordingly, it filed applications for impleadment of fresh Defendants. Due to the ongoing and upcoming high-value sports events, the Plaintiff sought real-time blocking powers to curb further infringements.
Arguments of the Plaintiff
The Plaintiff argued that approaching the Court each time for seeking injunction against a new rogue site or application is inefficient and infeasible, especially during the Court's vacation period. Further, any delay in blocking infringements causes irreparable damage to the Plaintiff's exclusive broadcasting rights in view of live sporting events. The Plaintiff limited its prayer for real-time blocking powers only until 03.07.2025. In support of his arguments, the Plaintiff relied upon previous orders passed in its favour, granting real-time injunction for IPL 2025 in CS(COMM) 266/2025 and CS(COMM) 688/2023 with emphasis on real-time blocking during sporting events.
Arguments of the Defendant
The Defendant (specifically Defendant No. 7) contested the application on the ground that the relief sought in the present application exceeds what has been originally prayed in the main suit.
Observations of the Court
The Court acknowledged that the Plaintiff is the rightful owner of the content, either by production or acquisition of broadcast rights. It further considered the organized and bad-faith operations of rogue websites and applications, intending to infringe intellectual property rights flagrantly. Recognizing the speed at which infringing websites appear and disappear, especially around live events, the Court emphasized the need for dynamic and real-time relief mechanisms. The Court acknowledged that earlier orders only covered rogue websites, however, the Court found no legal impediment to extending similar reliefs to mobile apps and their associated domains/URLs. The Court described this order as a "superlative injunction", akin to a "Dynamic+ Injunction", allowing the Plaintiff to seek real-time blocking without needing to file a fresh application each time.
Analysis of other orders
In Star India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jiolive.TV & Ors,3 the Delhi High Court granted a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff granting relief by restraining 396 rouge websites from infringing the Plaintiff's broadcast production rights in any manner as well as by blocking access to various rogue websites identified by the Plaintiff.
In another case concerning Star India Pvt. Ltd. vs. https//crichdplayer.org/ & Ors.,4 while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, the Delhi High Court granted Dynamic+ interim injunction to the Plaintiff, acknowledging that a clear law that "rights of a Plaintiff, who is an intellectual property rights holder, cannot 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."
Furthermore, in the present case,5 while adjudicating upon a previous application by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, the Court granted an extension of interim relief to the Plaintiff against any domain discovered by the Plaintiff during the course of the proceedings, to be notified by the Plaintiff for infringing the Plaintiff's exclusive rights. Thereby, laying down a general rule for protection under interim injunction extended to the copyright owner in such cases.
Relief and Conclusion
While hearing the present application and considering the urgency and high stakes of the matter, the Court directed the Defendants to suspend infringing domains/URLs/apps and disclose identifying and payment details in real-time. Further, the Court also issued directions for blocking access to such infringing domains/apps and ensuring compliance from ISPs valid till 03.07.2025.
With the continuous evolution and expansion of the internet, instances of copyright infringement have seen a significant rise. In response to the increasing need to protect copyrighted material and uphold the rights of original content creators, the judiciary has progressively adapted its remedial framework. Courts have moved beyond traditional static injunctions to adopt more effective and adaptive mechanisms. One such development is the issuance of dynamic injunctions, which extend to mirror and redirect websites that replicate infringing content. Building on this, dynamic+ injunctions have been introduced to proactively address both present and potential future infringements, allowing for the expedited removal of unauthorized content even when it reappears under new domains or platforms. Further advancing this approach, the judiciary has begun to grant superlative injunctions, which extend the protective ambit beyond websites to include emerging digital platforms such as mobile applications that may be discovered during the course of pending litigation. This evolving jurisprudence reflects a robust and forward-looking effort to ensure comprehensive protection of intellectual property in the digital age.
Footnotes
1 Star India Pvt Ltd vs. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors. CS(Comm) 108/2025 I.A. 14129/2025.
2 Star India Pvt Ltd vs. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors.CS (Comm) 108/2025 I.A. 3363/2025.
3 Star India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jiolive.TV & Ors. CS (Comm) 688/2023 I.A. 19115/2023.
4 Star India Pvt. Ltd. vs. https//crichdplayer.org/ & Ors. CS (Comm) 266/2025 I.A. 7769/2025.
5 Star India Pvt. Ltd. supra note 2.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
