The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained 63 piracy websites from hosting, streaming, reproducing or distributing copyrighted films and audiovisual works, after a copyright suit brought by six global entertainment companies.
The October 7, 2026 order covers domains such as 123MoviesHub and Putlocker, and directs internet service providers to block them. The plaintiffs were Universal City Studios LLC, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Columbia Pictures Industries Inc., Netflix Studios LLC, Paramount Pictures Corporation and Disney Enterprises Inc.
Why the case moved to summary judgment
The studios argued that the sites made their content available without licences. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that the court could decide the suit without oral evidence or a separate summary-judgment application. The defendants had been served with the claims and supporting documents more than four years earlier, but did not appear or contest the case.
The court relied on Rule 27 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, and said it was testing the uncontroverted pleadings against Rule 3 of Order XIIIA of the Civil Procedure Code. Additional affidavits, the court said, “would add nothing to what is already on record and would only be a repetition of the plaint”.
How a site gets treated as a rogue website
To identify flagrantly infringing online locations, the court applied the factors it had earlier laid out in UTV Software Communication v. 1337X.to (2019). The checklist includes:
- Whether the website’s primary purpose is to commit or facilitate copyright infringement.
- How flagrant the infringement is, and whether registrant details are concealed.
- Whether the site ignores takedown notices or helps users circumvent blocking orders.
- Whether it provides directories or indexes that make infringement easier, and whether courts elsewhere have blocked it.
The court said these factors are illustrative, not exhaustive, and do not apply to intermediaries, which have a separate legal framework.
What the order does not do
The studios can implead mirror, redirect and alphanumeric domains through a fresh application, and ISPs have been directed to block the identified sites. But the decree does not expressly create a dynamic injunction. In practice, rights-holders will need to return to court as new mirrors appear.
The order also limits relief by copyright ownership: each plaintiff can enforce the injunction only for works it genuinely controls.
What rights teams should take away
This ruling gives Indian rights-holders a cleaner route in uncontested piracy cases: serve notice, document the silence, and ask the Delhi High Court to decide on the pleadings. It also makes the UTV v. 1337X factors the practical template for proving a site is a rogue location.
For streaming and film businesses, the key operational job is evidence collection—tracking mirror domains, takedown responses and court orders from other jurisdictions—so that follow-on applications are fast and difficult to dispute.
Source: MEDIANAMA
