INTRODUCTION
The rapid digitization of content distribution has fundamentally altered the landscape of copyright enforcement.[1] Film studios and content producers today face widespread online piracy, unauthorized sharing on social media platforms, cyber locker websites, and mirror domains that resurface even after takedown orders. In recent years, the Delhi High Court has emerged as a key forum for addressing these challenges.[2], particularly through litigation initiated by major content owners such as Disney Entertainment Inc. and Indian Production houses like Red Chillies Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.
Although Disney and Red Chillies have not been adversaries in a conventional copyright dispute, their respective enforcement actions before the Delhi High Court reflect a common judicial approach towards digital piracy. These cases collectively illustrate how Indian courts are adapting copyright remedies to meet the realities of online infringement.
RISE OF THE DIGITAL PIRACY LITIGATION
Both Indian production houses and international studios increasingly rely on judicial intervention to protect copyrighted works, especially during pre-release and early theatrical windows. Red Chillies Ent. For instance, approached the Delhi High Court to restrain unauthorized circulation of clips from its film ‘JAWAN’ before its official release. Similarly, Disney Enterprises has been involved in multiple copyright enforcement actions in India seeking protection against online dissemination of its films and audiovisual content.
Such cases typically arise when infringing material is distributed through anonymous websites, social media channels, or file-sharing platforms, making traditional enforcement mechanisms ineffective.
KEY LEGAL ISSUE
- Copyright Infringement in the Digital Environment:
Under the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright holders possess exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, communicate to the public, and adapt their works.[3] The unauthorised uploading or sharing of film clips, stills, or full-length content on digital platforms constitutes infringement when done without the consent of the rights holder.[4]
In both Disney-related and Red Chillies-initiated actions, the plaintiffs asserted that online dissemination directly undermined commercial exploitation, affected box-office revenues, and diluted the value of exclusive distribution arrangements.[5]
- John Doe (Ashok Kumar) orders:
A recurring feature of these cases is the implementation of unknown defendants, commonly referred to as John Doe or Ashok Kumar defendants. Given the anonymous and transient nature of online infringers, plaintiffs are often unable to identify individual violators at the time of filing the suit.
The Delhi High Court has consistently recognised this practical difficulty and permitted plaintiffs to seek relief against unidentified persons and entities engaged in piracy.[6] This mechanism enables courts to grant immediate preventive relief without requiring exhaustive identification of every infringer.
- Dynamic Injunctions and Websites Blocking:
One of the most significant developments in recent copyright jurisprudence is the use of dynamic injunctions. Rather than limiting relief to specific URLs, courts have allowed plaintiffs to extend injunctions to mirror websites and newly created domains that host identical infringing content.
In cases involving Disney and other studios, the Delhi High Court has directed Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block access to rogue websites and, in some instances, permitted future blocking without requiring separate judicial approval each time a mirror site emerges. This approach reflects judicial recognition of the evolving tactics employed by digital pirates.
JUDICIAL REASONING AND APPROACH
The Delhi High Court’s approach in these cases demonstrates a balancing exercise between enforcing intellectual property rights and avoiding excessive restrictions on internet access.[7] Courts have generally required plaintiffs to establish a prima facie case of ownership, imminent harm, and the likelihood of continued infringement before granting broad injunctions.[8]
Notably, the court’s orders emphasise that blocking measures are targeted at clearly infringing platforms rather than lawful intermediaries. This distinction is crucial to prevent over-blocking and to maintain compliance with intermediary liability principles under the Information Technology Act, 2000.[9]
COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE: INDIA AND GLOBAL ANTI-PIRACY ENFORCEMENT
A comparative look reveals that India’s approach to online copyright enforcement broadly aligns with international trends, while retaining certain jurisdiction-specific safeguards. Courts in the United Kingdom and the United States have also granted site-blocking injunctions against pirate platforms, particularly where infringement is systematic and commercially motivated.[10]. However, Indian courts, especially the Delhi High Court, have gone a step further by developing the concept of dynamic injunctions, which allow rights holders to combat mirror and redirect websites without initiating fresh litigation each time. This procedural flexibility reflects an attempt to balance judicial efficiency with effective rights protection.[11] At the same time, Indian courts have emphasised proportionality, ensuring that lawful platforms and users are not unduly affected. This evolving jurisprudence positions India as an increasingly proactive jurisdiction in global copyright enforcement, particularly in the digital entertainment sector.
BROADER IMPLICATIONS
- For Content Owners:
These decisions strengthen the enforcement toolkit available to copyright holders. The availability of dynamic injunctions and John Doe orders reduces the delay between infringement and judicial relief, thereby minimising commercial losses.
- For Digital Platforms and Intermediaries:
While intermediaries continue to enjoy statutory safe harbour protections, courts have clarified that such protection does not extend to platforms that facilitate or fail to act against clearly infringing content after receiving notice. This signals a gradual tightening of intermediary responsibilities in copyright matters.
- For Copyright Jurisprudence in India:
The judicial strategies reflected in Disney-related and Red Chillies litigation indicate a shift towards pragmatic, technology-aware copyright enforcement. Rather than relying solely on post-facto remedies, courts are prioritising preventive measures that reflect the realities of digital dissemination.
CONCLUSION
The Delhi High Court’s handling of copyright enforcement actions involving major studios such as Disney Enterprises and Indian producers like Red Chillies Entertainment highlights an evolving judicial response to digital piracy. Through the use of John Doe defendants, dynamic injunctions, and targeted blocking orders, the court has sought to adapt traditional copyright principles to contemporary technological challenges.
While these developments enhance protection for rights holders, they also raise important questions regarding proportionality, intermediary obligations, and access to lawful content. As digital distribution continues to expand, such cases are likely to play a critical role in shaping the future trajectory of copyright enforcement in India.
Author(s) Name: Krishna Hinge (Shankarrao Chavan LAW College)
References:
[1] World Intellectual Property Organization, World Intellectual Property Report 2019: The Geography of Innovation – Local Hotspots, Global Networks (WIPO 2019).
[2] UDTV Software Communication Ltd v 1337x.to (2019) 78 PTC 375 (Del)
[3] Copyright Act 1957, s 14
[4] Tips Industries Ltd v Wynk Music Ltd 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 265
[5] Copyright Act 1957, s 51
[6] Taj Television Ltd v Rajan Mandal 2003 (27) PTC 205 (Del)
[7] Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
[8] Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021
[9] Information Technology Act 2000, s 79
[10] Cartier International AG v British Telecommunications plc [2016] UKSC 28.
[11] A&M Records Inc v Napster Inc 239 F 3d 1004 (9th Cir 2001)
