A Rights Deal Against the Clock

As the FIFA World Cup 2026 enters its final stages, with the third-place play-off and the final between defending champions Argentina and Spain expected to attract millions of viewers worldwide, the focus is no longer confined to the action on the pitch. Even before the tournament commenced, Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., had secured the exclusive media rights for India, by approaching the Delhi High Court seeking protection against rogue websites and digital platforms expected to illegally stream the tournament. The proceedings demonstrate that acquiring exclusive broadcasting rights is only the first step, with effective protection against digital piracy being equally essential.

The FIFA World Cup 2026 also provides a timely opportunity to examine India’s evolving anti-piracy jurisprudence. With one of the world’s largest digital sports audiences, India faces a significant challenge from rogue websites, mirror domains, IPTV services and mobile applications capable of illegally streaming live sporting events within minutes. Against this backdrop, Indian courts have progressively expanded anti-piracy remedies—from John Doe orders to dynamic injunctions, dynamic+ injunctions and, more recently, superlative injunctions—to preserve the commercial value of exclusive broadcasting rights.

 From John Doe to Dynamic+ Injunctions

The first significant step in this evolution was the development of John Doe (trivia: known in India as Ashok Kumar) orders, first recognised by the Delhi High Court in Taj Television Ltd. v. Rajan Mandal (2002). The case arose in the context of cable piracy, where the plaintiff, the exclusive broadcaster of the FIFA World Cup 2002, apprehended widespread unauthorised transmission of its broadcasts by cable operators whose identities could not be ascertained in advance. Recognising that waiting to identify every infringer would render the remedy ineffective, the Court held that it could grant preventive relief against unknown or unidentified defendants where the plaintiff established a prima facie case, irreparable loss and injury, and the likelihood of infringement. Exercising the Court’s powers under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court recognised its inherent power to issue such injunctions in the interests of justice, laying the foundation for India’s evolving anti-piracy jurisprudence.

However, the migration of piracy to the digital environment soon exposed the limitations of John Doe orders. Blocking one infringing website frequently resulted in the immediate appearance of mirror websites, redirect links and alphanumeric variants hosting identical infringing content. Recognising that requiring copyright holders to institute fresh proceedings every time a new website emerged would make enforcement ineffective, the Delhi High Court in UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.to & Ors. (2019) introduced the concept of the dynamic injunction, drawing inspiration from the Singapore High Court’s decision in Disney Enterprises v. M1 Ltd. (2018), where the concept was first recognised.

The Delhi High Court also recognised the concept of Flagrantly Infringing Online Locations (FIOLs), commonly referred to as rogue websites, and laid down a non-exhaustive list of factors to identify them. These included whether the website primarily facilitated copyright infringement, concealed the identity of its operators, had been blocked in other jurisdictions, had previously been the subject of court orders, and the overall nature and traffic of the website. Recognising the “hydra-headed” nature of online piracy, the Delhi High Court departed from the Bombay High Court’s quantitative approach in Eros International Media Ltd. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2016), which generally favoured blocking an entire website only where substantially all of its content was infringing. Instead, relying on the Division Bench decision in Department of Electronics and Information Technology v. Star India Pvt. Ltd. (2016), the Court adopted a qualitative approach, holding that where a website exists primarily to facilitate piracy, blocking the entire website may be justified. The Court observed that blocking individual URLs would often be ineffective because URLs can be changed or recreated within minutes.

To ensure that the remedy remained effective, the Delhi High Court in UTV Software (supra) introduced a procedure enabling rights holders to extend existing injunctions to mirror, redirect and alphanumeric variants of rogue websites by filing an application supported by an affidavit before the Joint Registrar. Upon being satisfied, the Joint Registrar could direct Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to disable access to such websites as also direct the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) facilitating implementation of the blocking orders.

The next stage in this evolution was marked by the Delhi High Court’s decision in Universal City Studios LLC & Ors. v. Dotmovies Baby & Ors. (2023), which introduced the dynamic+ injunction. While a dynamic injunction protected against mirror and variant websites, the Court recognised that this was insufficient where copyright owners continuously created new works. Observing that copyright in future works arises upon creation, the Court extended protection not only to future variants of rogue websites but also to the plaintiffs’ future copyrighted works, eliminating the need to institute fresh proceedings each time a new film, series or programme was released. The injunction could also extend to websites associated with the defendants by name, branding, identity or source of content, preventing infringers from evading the injunction through similar websites. To preserve judicial oversight, however, plaintiffs were required to file an application, supported by an affidavit and evidence, before the Registrar to extend protection to future works. The Court also directed Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) to lock and suspend infringing domain names and disclose registrant details to the plaintiffs, strengthening enforcement beyond merely blocking access.

Real-Time Enforcement and the Emergence of the Superlative Injunction

The most recent development is the superlative injunction, first articulated by the Delhi High Court in Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. IPTV Smarters Pro & Ors. (May 29, 2025). Building upon the principles underlying dynamic and dynamic+ injunctions, this remedy recognises that piracy now extends beyond websites to mobile applications, URLs, user interfaces and other digital access points. Unlike dynamic and dynamic+ injunctions, which generally require rights holders to approach the Court to extend blocking directions, a superlative injunction enables them to directly notify ISPs, DNRs and other intermediaries to block newly identified infringing platforms without obtaining fresh judicial approval for every new instance of infringement.

This evolution has assumed particular significance in the context of live sports broadcasting, where the commercial value of exclusive rights is intrinsically linked to real-time transmission and even short delays in enforcement may cause irreparable harm. In Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. v. GHD Sports & Ors. (January 30, 2026), concerning the ICC Under-19 Men’s Cricket World Cup 2026 and the ICC Men’s T20 Cricket World Cup 2026, the Delhi High Court granted a superlative injunction by permitting the plaintiff to directly notify newly discovered infringing applications, UIs, URLs and websites to DNRs and ISPs for immediate blocking during the tournament, while retaining judicial oversight through continuing affidavit requirements. By contrast, in Jiostar India Private Limited v. https//daddylives.nl & Ors. (March 25, 2026), arising out of TATA IPL 2026, the Delhi High Court granted a real-time dynamic injunction confined to rogue websites by directing the immediate blocking of newly discovered infringing websites to DNRs and ISPs, along with supporting evidence, for immediate blocking during the tournament, without requiring the filing of continuing affidavits. In both these cases, the Court also included a safeguard by allowing any non-infringing application or website that was wrongly blocked to approach the Court for modification or clarification of the injunction.

The evolution of these remedies provides the legal framework through which Indian courts now protect exclusive broadcasting rights for major live sporting events such as the FIFA World Cup.

 Protecting the FIFA World Cup: Applying India’s Evolving Anti-Piracy Framework

The Delhi High Court’s order in Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. https://soccerbox.me/ & Ors. (June 3, 2026) is the latest reported decision in this line of anti-piracy jurisprudence. Although the Court did not expressly describe the relief as a superlative injunction, the mechanism closely resembles one by combining real-time enforcement against rogue websites, rogue mobile applications and their associated domains, URLs and UIs with continuing judicial oversight. Unlike the earlier order in Star India (Supra), this order required the plaintiff to continue filing affidavits before the Court identifying newly discovered infringing platforms and the corresponding blocking actions undertaken. The result is a framework that facilitates immediate enforcement while preserving judicial supervision.

Interestingly, the FIFA World Cup has marked both the beginning and the latest application of India’s anti-piracy injunction jurisprudence. While the Delhi High Court first recognised the John Doe (Ashok Kumar) injunction in Taj Television (Supra) during the 2002 FIFA World Cup, the FIFA World Cup 2026 has seen the application of a far more advanced real-time anti-piracy framework.

Conclusion

The evolution of anti-piracy injunctions in India reflects the judiciary’s pragmatic approach to adapt equitable remedies to the realities of digital piracy. While the Copyright Act, 1957 grants copyright owners exclusive rights and remedies against infringement, it does not provide a dedicated framework for addressing online piracy. In the absence of such a framework, Indian courts have progressively developed anti-piracy injunctions through their inherent powers to address increasingly sophisticated forms of digital infringement.

However, since this evolution has largely been driven by judicial innovation rather than legislative guidance have resulted in varying terminology, procedures and safeguards. A comprehensive statutory framework governing digital piracy would bring greater clarity, consistency and procedural certainty, while facilitating effective and timely enforcement, incorporating safeguards against over-blocking and respecting the principle of proportionality. At the same time, copyright owners and exclusive broadcasters should continue to make lawful content more accessible and affordable so that users are less likely to resort to infringing websites and such platforms.

Feedback