Delhi High Court blocks 63 piracy websites in studios’ copyright case

MUMBAI: The curtain has come down on 63 websites accused of serving up copyrighted films without permission, with the Delhi High Court ordering a permanent block on domains associated with 123MoviesHub, Putlocker and other alleged piracy platforms. The ruling gives major Hollywood studios and Netflix a legal win in their fight against unauthorised online distribution, while also providing a route to tackle mirror sites that may emerge to replace blocked domains.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav delivered the ruling on 7 October in a copyright infringement case brought by Universal City Studios, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Columbia Pictures, Netflix Studios, Paramount Pictures and Disney Enterprises against the operators of the websites, LiveLaw biz reported.

The studios alleged that the platforms offered users free access to their films and other audiovisual content without authorisation. They backed their claims with documentary evidence and an investigator’s affidavit, seeking legal action against websites they said were engaged in copyright infringement.

The court ultimately issued a permanent injunction against the identified websites and their operators, prohibiting further infringement of the plaintiffs’ copyrights. It also directed the relevant internet service providers to block access to the listed domains, cutting off a key route through which users could reach the allegedly infringing material.

The decision was not simply about whether the websites should be blocked. The court also examined whether it could grant summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, without a separate application seeking that relief, and whether the case required oral evidence before a decision could be reached.

The court concluded that the pleadings and documents already on record were sufficient to resolve the dispute. Requiring the studios to present oral evidence, it reasoned, would serve little purpose if that evidence merely repeated claims already supported by the material submitted. The defendants had not appeared in court despite receiving notice, leaving the studios’ allegations uncontested in the proceedings.

In assessing the websites, the court drew on its 2017 ruling in UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.to, which established indicators for identifying rogue websites. These include whether a website’s primary purpose is to facilitate copyright infringement, the extent of the alleged violations, whether its operators attempt to conceal their identities and how they respond to takedown notices.

Applying those indicators, the court found that the evidence established that the websites were primarily engaged in copyright infringement or facilitating such violations. With the defendants failing to contest the case, it concluded that they had no real prospect of successfully defending the claims.

For the studios, the ruling offers more than a block on the 63 domains identified in the proceedings. Piracy websites can attempt to remain accessible by switching domain names, creating mirror sites or redirecting users to alternative addresses. The court’s order addresses that challenge by allowing the plaintiffs to seek the inclusion of mirror sites, redirect domains and alphanumeric websites that provide alternative routes to the same infringing platforms, subject to an appropriate application.

That provision could prove significant in enforcement efforts, allowing the studios to approach the court when new domains are identified rather than treating the original list as the end of the matter. However, the order does not automatically place every future domain under the injunction; the plaintiffs must follow the prescribed application process.

The court has also clarified that the relief granted to each studio applies only to content for which that particular plaintiff owns the copyright. The injunction therefore protects the studios’ respective copyrighted works rather than giving each company blanket rights over all material carried by the websites.

The case underscores the legal options available to copyright owners seeking to curb unauthorised online distribution, particularly where documentary evidence is considered sufficient and the defendants do not participate in the proceedings. It also highlights the continuing challenge of enforcing copyright protections in an online environment where access points can change even after a court orders them blocked.

With the permanent injunction in place and internet service providers directed to restrict access to the 63 listed domains, the immediate legal outcome is clear: the identified websites and their operators are barred from further infringing the plaintiffs’ copyrights. Whether the order can also keep pace with replacement domains will depend on the studios’ ability to identify them and seek further relief through the court.