The Delhi High Court has ruled that copyright holders and internet intermediaries cannot independently determine whether a website qualifies as a “rogue website” deserving of a blocking order. While recognising the persistent challenge posed by online piracy, the Court held that the final decision to classify and block such platforms must remain a judicial function.
The ruling came in a copyright infringement case filed by Home Box Office Inc. (HBO) and other content owners against multiple groups of websites accused of illegally streaming films and television programmes.
The Court observed that copyright owners should not be forced to initiate fresh litigation every time an infringing website reappears under a new domain. At the same time, it stressed that neither the content owners nor internet service providers (ISPs) or domain name registrars (DNRs) can be given unchecked authority to decide which websites should be blocked.
According to the Court, such a determination cannot rest on the unilateral assessment of a copyright owner or the satisfaction of an intermediary, but must ultimately be examined by the judiciary.
HBO argued that the websites were making copyrighted films and television content available without permission, often immediately after release and, in certain instances, even before official release dates. The company also pointed out that the operators had concealed their identities by using privacy protection services.
After examining the material on record, the Court found that the websites displayed several characteristics commonly associated with large-scale piracy platforms. It noted that registration details had been hidden, verifiable contact information was unavailable and the overwhelming majority of the content offered on the websites appeared to be unauthorised.
The Court remarked that the alleged infringement was not incidental but appeared to be the very purpose for which the websites were operating.
During the proceedings, domain name registrars stated that they did not oppose blocking the websites already identified in the case. However, they objected to any blanket order that would require intermediaries to block future websites solely on the basis of an affidavit filed by HBO.
Taking note of the evolving tactics of piracy operators, the Court acknowledged that infringing websites frequently evade blocking orders by resurfacing through mirror domains, alphanumeric variations or redirect websites. Nevertheless, it declined to grant copyright owners or intermediaries unrestricted authority to extend blocking orders without judicial oversight.
The Court emphasised that ISPs and DNRs function as neutral intermediaries and are not expected to determine whether a website is a rogue platform engaged in copyright infringement.
To balance effective enforcement with procedural safeguards, the Court introduced a structured mechanism for dealing with newly emerging mirror websites.
Under this framework, a copyright owner may notify an ISP or DNR about a suspected mirror or redirect website by filing an affidavit supported by relevant evidence. The intermediary’s role is limited to carrying out a technical verification to determine whether the new domain is in fact a mirror, alphanumeric variant or redirect of a website already covered by an injunction.
If that technical relationship is established, the intermediary may temporarily extend the existing blocking order to the newly identified domain. However, the copyright owner must simultaneously approach the Court seeking to implead the new website in the pending proceedings. The Court will then examine the matter and decide whether the temporary blocking order should continue.
The judgment also underscored that intermediaries must maintain their neutral status to retain the safe-harbour protection available under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Court added that any false, frivolous or mala fide claims made while seeking to block additional websites could invite appropriate judicial action.
Pending further proceedings, the Court granted an interim injunction restraining access to the websites identified in the suit.
