Home Box Office Inc & Ors. vs Streamzy.To & Ors.

$~J-
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 27.07.2026
+ CS(COMM) 740/2026
HOME BOX OFFICE INC & ORS. .....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal with Ms.
Suhasini Raina, Mr. Raghav Goyal,
Mr. Aditya Sing Thakur, Mr. Affan
Moin, Advocates.
versus
STREAMZY.TO & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Ms. Kruttika Vijay with Ms. Harshitha
Rathod, Ms. Suvarna Singh,
Advocates for D-31.
Ms. Shweta Sahu and Ms. Deeksha
Pokhriyal, Advocates for D-39.
Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC
with Mr. Nipun Jain, GP for D-60 and
61.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
J U D G M E N T
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
I.A. 18203/2026
By way of the present application filed under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the CPC, the plaintiffs seek the
following reliefs :
“i. Pass an order of temporary injunction restraining the
Defendant Nos. 1-30 (and any such other
mirror/redirect/alphanumeric website which appears to be
associated with any of the Defendant Websites either based on its
name, branding, the identity of its operator, or source of the content
or discovered to provide additional means of accessing, the
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 740/2026 Page 1 of 18
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

Defendant Websites and other domains/domain along with their
subdomains and subdirectories, owners / website operators / entities
which are discovered during the course of the proceedings to have
been engaged in infringing the Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights and
copyrights in the Titles and / or Upcoming Titles), its owners,
partners, proprietors, officers, servants, employees, and all others in
capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or
anyone claiming through, by or under it, from, in any manner hosting,
streaming, reproducing, distributing, making available to the public
and / or communicating to the public, or facilitating the same, on their
websites, through the internet in any manner whatsoever, Titles and /
or Upcoming Titles in which Plaintiffs have copyright and/or any
other right;
iii. Pass an order directing the Defendant Nos. 51-59
(ISPs), their directors, partners, proprietors, officers, affiliates,
servants, employees, and all others in capacity of principal or agent
acting for and on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or
under it, to block access to the Defendant Nos. 1-30 websites
identified by Plaintiffs in the instant suit (and such other websites
which are discovered during the course of the proceedings and
notified on Affidavit by the Plaintiffs to have been infringing the
Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights, copyrights in the Titles and / or Upcoming
Titles);
iv. Pass an order directing the Defendant Nos. 60-61
(DoT and MEITY), to issue a notification calling upon the various
Internet Service Providers registered under it to block access to the
various websites identified by the Plaintiffs in the instant suit and
such other websites which are discovered during the course of the
proceedings and notified on Affidavit by the Plaintiffs to have been
infringing the Plaintiffs exclusive rights and copyrights in the Titles
and / or Upcoming Titles.
v. Pass an ex-parte ad-interim order in terms of the
prayer clauses (i) to (iv) hereinabove;
vi Pass any other Order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may
also be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs.”
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 740/2026 Page 2 of 18
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

2. Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff
submits, that defendants Nos.1-30 are ‘rogue websites’ that are carrying
motion pictures produced by the plaintiffs without any license or other
authority to do so.
3. Mr. Rajagopal submits, that defendants Nos.31 to 50 are the domain
name registrars (‘DNR’) who have registered the websites set-out as
defendants Nos.1-30; defendants Nos.51-59 are the internet service
providers (‘ISP’); and defendants Nos.60 and 61 are the Department of
Telecommunications (DoT) and Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology (MEITY) of the Government of India respectively. The
particulars of defendants Nos.1-30 and defendants Nos.51-59 are
appended in the Schedules appearing herein-below.
4. Mr. Rajagopal submits, that defendants Nos.1-30 are
carrying/broadcasting/webcasting/streaming movies sometimes
immediately upon release and sometimes even before release, in flagrant
violation of the copyright of the production house, namely the plaintiffs.
5. Explaining what the court has considered to be ‘rogue websites’ and how
they are to be dealt with in law, Mr. Rajagopal draws attention to the
view taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in UTV Software
1
Communication Ltd. & Ors. v. 1337X.To & Ors. and connected
matters to submit that the court has held as follows :
“ WHETHER AN INFRINGER OF COPYRIGHT ON THE
INTERNET IS TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY FROM AN
INFRINGER IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD?
“ 50. However, many believe that Internet is a unique highway
or a separate space (i.e. Cyberspace) to be left totally free i.e.
1
2019 SCC OnLine Del 8002
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 740/2026 Page 3 of 18
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

unrestricted. They believe that this space should be left free to be used
by an infringer or by a law abiding individual simultaneously.
Internet exceptionalists, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
are defined by the belief that because the Internet is exceptional, most
rules that apply offline should not apply online. Followers of this
school of thought believe that the Internet is first and foremost about
individual freedom, not about collective responsibility. Their view is
that the Internet's chief function is to liberate individuals from control
by, or dependence on Government and Corporations. They believe in
the maturity of the public. The followers of this school of thought
acknowledge that online piracy comes at the cost of legal sales, but
they rationalize this loss by saying that it only hurts the profits of
content firms, implying that if the choice is between infringement that
rewards consumers with free content legality that helps corporations,
then the former is to be preferred.
“ 51. However, this Court finds that the majority of piracy
websites are in it not for any ideological reason but for one reason:
to make money. Modern digital piracy is a multibillion-dollar
international business. (Only a small fraction of sites are supported
by ideologies which believe that piracy is a social good.) For
example, the owners of The Pirate Bay were earning $3 million a
year, according to Swedish prosecutors. More recently, U.S. law
enforcement stated that one of the world's most popular piracy sites—
KickassTorrents—was making $16 million annually in advertising.
“ 52. Business models differ, but the majority of piracy sites
make money via advertising, or to a lesser degree, through
subscriptions that provide premium access to content without
advertising. The Digital Citizens Alliance's Good Money Still Going
Bad : Digital Thieves and the Hijacking of the Online Ad Business
report showed that 589 of the largest piracy sites generated more
than $200 million in advertising-driven revenues in 2014. Another
report showed that 80 percent of the top piracy websites (550 of 622)
in Europe carried advertising, showing how easy it is for piracy sites
to profit from online advertising and how profit-driven these sites are.
Piracy sites take advantage of the fact that the online economy has
become more complex and easier to exploit. There are many
intermediaries that aggregate ad space—known as an ad exchange—
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 740/2026 Page 4 of 18
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

from a range of websites (both legitimate and illegitimate) for
advertisers to use. This makes it easy for websites hosting illegal
content to gain advertising revenue, including from legitimate
brands and businesses, which may be several steps and
organizations removed from the host site.
“ 53. Also should an infringer of the copyright on the Internet
be treated differently from an infringer in the physical world? If the
view of the aforesaid Internet exceptionalists school of thought is
accepted, then all infringers would shift to the e-world and claim
immunity!
“ 54. A world without law is a lawless world. In fact, this Court
is of the view that there is no logical reason why a crime in the
physical world is not a crime in the digital world especially when the
Copyright Act does not make any such distinction.
WHETHER SEEKING BLOCKING OF A WEBSITE
DEDICATED TO PIRACY MAKES ONE AN OPPONENT OF A
FREE AND OPEN INTERNET?
“ 55. If the views of Internet exceptionalists were to be
accepted, then a boon like Cyberspace would turn into a disaster.
Further, just as supporting bans on the import of ivory or cross-
border human trafficking does not make one a protectionist,
supporting website blocking for sites dedicated to piracy does not
make one an opponent of a free and open Internet. Consequently, this
Court is of the opinion that advocating limits on accessing illegal
content online does not violate open Internet principles.
“ 56. The key issue about Internet freedom, therefore, is not
whether the Internet is and should be completely free or whether
Governments should have unlimited censorship authority, but
rather where the appropriate lines should be drawn, how they are
drawn and how they are implemented.
WHAT IS A ‘ROGUE WEBSITE’?
“ 57. One of the key issues around digital piracy is the
importance of distinguishing between accidental and intentional
piracy. Some experts are apprehensive that anti-piracy orders can go
too far, sweeping in the former when they should be more focused on
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 740/2026 Page 5 of 18
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

the latter. There are risks that cleverly drafted plaints could
intentionally harm sites that are largely focused on legal material and
that diligently work to limit infringing material. But one also knows
that doing nothing contributes to further piracy. In the opinion of this
Court, finding this balance does not mean abandoning efforts to go
after international piracy.
“ 58. Music and film piracy are primarily facilitated on the net
by FIOLs or Rogue Websites. They are those websites which
primarily and predominantly share infringing/pirated content or
illegal work (See : Para 2 of Order dated 29.07.2016
in DEITY v. Star India Pvt. Ltd., FAO (OS) 57/2015). Either these
websites, themselves allow streaming of content or provide a
searchable database with links to third-party FIOLs. The Registrant
details of these websites are unknown and any or all contact
information is masked/blocked. Even the Ad Networks employed on
these websites are not run-of-the-mill popular networks, but obscure
Ad Networks, with equally anonymized credentials. These websites
invite consumers for watching free movies/contents. Although,
some of these websites feebly claim to only provide links to third-
party websites and not host content on their servers, yet their entire
module/interface is premised on allowing users to watch pirated
releases/movies by way of links, and which account for all the
content available on their sites .
“ 59. In the opinion of this Court, some of the factors to be
considered for determining whether the website complained of is a
FIOL/Rogue Website are :—
a. whether the primary purpose of the website is to commit or
facilitate copyright infringement ;
b. the flagrancy of the infringement, or the flagrancy of the
facilitation of the infringement;
c. Whether the detail of the registrant is masked and no
personal or traceable detail is available either of the Registrant or of
the user.
d. Whether there is silence or inaction by such website after
receipt of take down notices pertaining to copyright infringement.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 740/2026 Page 6 of 18
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

e. Whether the online location makes available or contains
directories, indexes or categories of the means to infringe, or
facilitate an infringement of, copyright;
f. Whether the owner or operator of the online location
demonstrates a disregard for copyright generally;
g. Whether access to the online location has been disabled by
orders from any court of another country or territory on the ground
of or related to copyright infringement;
h. whether the website contains guides or instructions to
circumvent measures, or any order of any court, that disables access
to the website on the ground of or related to copyright infringement;
and
i. the volume of traffic at or frequency of access to the website;
j. Any other relevant matter. ”
(emphasis supplied)
6. It is the plaintiffs’ case that while the identities of the DNRs are known,
the registrants themselves i.e., the actual owners/operators of the
defendant websites, remain masked behind privacy-protection policies,
rendering it impossible for the plaintiffs to identify or proceed against
the true operators directly.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this
court finds that defendants Nos.1 to 30 bear the hallmarks of flagrantly
infringing online locations (‘FIOL’) as set-out in the above-cited
decision. It is stated by the plaintiffs that the registrant details of the said
defendant websites are masked, no traceable contact information is
available, and the content hosted or made accessible by them is, on a
prima facie view, overwhelmingly unlicensed cinematographic work of
the plaintiffs. This is, therefore, not a case of incidental infringement,
but one where the primary purpose of the websites appears to be to
facilitate infringement of the plaintiffs’ copyright.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 740/2026 Page 7 of 18
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

8. Counsel submits, that unless orders in the terms prayed-for in para 11
(i), (ii), (iii) of the present application are not passed, the rogue websites
will succeed in blatantly infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs in their
cinematographic films and shows.
9. Issue notice.
10. Learned counsel, as above, appear on behalf of the defendants accept
notice; and seeks time to file reply.
11. Upon the plaintiffs taking steps within 10 days, let notice be sent to the
unserved defendant by all permissible modes, returnable for the next date
before the learned Joint Registrar.
12. Let reply to the application be filed within 30 days of service; rejoinder
thereto, if any, be filed within 30 days thereafter; with copies to the
opposing counsel.
13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants Nos.31 and 39
submit that they have no hesitation in blocking the rogue websites as
referred-to in the plaint. However, it is pointed-out that in para 11(ii) of
the present application, the plaintiffs are also seeking a blanket interim
injunction order, whereby they are praying that if, during the course of
the present proceedings, any other websites are discovered to be
infringing the plaintiffs’ copyright, such websites must also be blocked
by the concerned ISPs/DNRs merely on being notified by the plaintiffs
on affidavit in that behalf. Learned counsel submits however, that this
would place the ISPs and DNRs in a peculiar position, inasmuch as being
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 740/2026 Page 8 of 18
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

mere intermediaries, the ISPs/DNRs would be required to exercise
powers of blocking websites without any administrative or judicial order.
14. On the other hand, the concern raised by Mr. Rajagopal is indeed a
practical issue that the plaintiffs would most likely face, since there is
every chance that the rogue websites that are being injuncted in the
interim by the present order, would try to circumvent the injunction by
redirecting their content onto mirror/alphanumeric/re-direct websites, or
other similar websites, so as to frustrate the plaintiff's copyright and
evade the effect of the injunction order. This would make the plaintiff
chase a moving target, and would frustrate the injunction orders that the
court may have passed.
15. The difficulty expressed on behalf of the plaintiffs is therefore genuine;
and clearly, it would be futile for the court to pass injunction orders
against the defendant rogue websites only to find those orders being
frustrated with ease, by the infringing content showing-up on
mirror/alphanumeric/re-direct websites. At the same time, the court
would also be loath to grant either to the plaintiffs or to the ISPs or the
DNRs a carté blanche to block any and every website by themselves
extending the interim injunction issued by this court to other websites
without any judicial screening or scrutiny.
16. In matters of this nature, this court and Co-ordinate Benches have
granted varying kinds of relief depending on the facts shown before
them. The relevant extracts from such orders are set out below:
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 740/2026 Page 9 of 18
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

16.1. Universal City Studios Productions LLLP & Ors. vs.
2
Movies123.LA & Ors.
“ … … e. To keep up with the hydra-headed nature of
the infringement actions of such infringing domains/websites,
this Court finds it fit to grant a ‘Dynamic+ injunction’ to
protect copyrighted works as soon as they are created, to
ensure that no irreparable loss is caused to the owners of
copyrighted works, as there is an imminent possibility of
works being uploaded on infringing websites or their newer
versions immediately thereafter. Plaintiffs are permitted to
implead any mirror/redirect/alphanumeric variations of the
websites identified in the suit as defendants nos. 1 to 26,
including those websites which are associated with them,
either based on the name, branding, identity or even source
of content, by filing an application for impleadment under
Order I Rule 10, CPC in the event such websites merely
provide new means of accessing the same primary
infringing websites that have been injuncted.
“ f . Plaintiffs will be at liberty to also file such an
appropriate application seeking protection qua their
copyrighted works, including future works, if the need so
arises. Upon filing such applications along with an affidavit
with sufficient supporting evidence seeking extension of the
injunction to such websites, which be listed before the Joint
Registrar, the injunction shall become operational against
the said websites and qua such works. If there is any work
in respect of which there is any dispute as to ownership of
copyright, an application may be moved by the affected party
before the Court, to seek clarification regarding the same. ”
(emphasis supplied)
3
16.2. Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Terrimeridooriyan.com & Ors.
“ … … f. It is further directed that if any other mirror
websites/ alphanumeric websites/ similar websites are found
2
2024 SCC OnLine Del 3852
3
Order dt. 23.02.2024 in CS(COMM) 163/2024
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 740/2026 Page 10 of 18
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

to be directly or indirectly infringing the plaintiffs’ rights, the
plaintiffs will be at liberty to communicate in writing/email
to the DNRs, ISPs, DoT, MEITY. The said defendants shall
ensure that the directions given above shall be extended to
those websites as well. If any of these defendants have a
reservation, they will be at liberty to address a written
communication/email to the plaintiffs stating the reasons
for the same. The plaintiffs are at liberty to approach this
Court for any relief they may seek pursuant to the same.
Plaintiffs shall also file within 24 hours of sending any such
communication, an affidavit before this Court giving the list
of the websites they have communicated to the said
defendants, as well as supporting documentation in relation
to the same. The plaintiffs shall be held to their affidavit and
in the event any assertion by the plaintiff, of a website being
a rogue website, is found to be incorrect or false, it may
necessitate strictures/directions from this Court. ”
(emphasis supplied)
4
16.3. Home Box Office Inc vs. Moviebox.ph & Ors.
“… … iv. If any further websites are discovered
during the course of the proceedings, which are found to be
unauthorizedly streaming, communicating, hosting or
making available content over which the plaintiff has
exclusive copyright in respect of the Series – Euphoria:
Season 1, Euphoria: Season 2 and/or the upcoming season
of the same – Euphoria: Season 3, the plaintiff is at liberty
to communicate the details of such websites, domain names,
URLs to defendant nos.21 to 31/DNRs and defendant nos.32
to 40/Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Upon receiving
such intimation from the plaintiff alongwith supporting
evidence, defendant nos.21 to 31/DNRs are directed to
forthwith lock or suspend the domain name registrations of
such newly discovered infringing websites and defendant
nos.32 to 40/ISPs are directed to immediately block access
to the said websites;
4
Order dt. 06.04.2026 in CS(COMM) 358/2026
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 740/2026 Page 11 of 18
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

“ v. Defendant no.41/DoT and defendant
no.42/MEITY are directed to issue a notification calling upon
the various ISPs registered under it to block access to the
various infringing websites identified by the plaintiff in the
instant suit, as well as any additional infringing websites
discovered during the course of the release of the Series and
the Show – Euphoria, and notified by the plaintiff on real time
basis;
“ 28 . For any further infringing websites discovered
by the plaintiff, which are found to be offering or dealing in
the plaintiff’s copyright content in the Series and the Show,
the plaintiff shall be at liberty to approach the learned Joint
Registrar (Judicial) by filing an appropriate application
under Order I Rule 10, CPC for impleadment of such
infringers.
“ 29. For extension of the present ex-parte ad-interim
injunction against such newly discovered infringers, the
plaintiff shall also be at liberty to approach this Court in
accordance with law.
“ 30. The plaintiff shall continue to file affidavits
providing details of the newly discovered websites, their
domain names and the URLs, which are communicated and
blocked to ensure that this Court is fully informed of the
websites in respect of which blocking orders are sought.
“ 31. If any website, which is not primarily an
infringing website, is blocked in pursuance of this Order, it
is permitted to approach the Court by giving an undertaking
that it does not intend to do any illegal dissemination of the
content over which the plaintiff has copyright and the Court
would consider modifying the injunction if the facts and
circumstances so warrant. ”
(emphasis supplied)
5
16.4. Universal City Studios & Ors. vs. Mixdrop Co . & Ors.
“ 40. Piracy through Cyberlockers is swift and dealing
with that is challenging. As per Plaintiffs' contentions, it is
5
2023 SCC OnLine Del 3395
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 740/2026 Page 12 of 18
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

anticipated that Defendants No. 1 to 13 will re-emerge with
mirror websites, redirect pages, or websites featuring
variations using alphanumeric characters. This is not a
hypothetical proposition, but a hard reality. Once a film is
uploaded to a Cyberlocker website, it can be shared and
downloaded by numerous users in a matter of minutes or
hours, leading to widespread infringement before effective
countermeasures can be implemented. To avoid burdening
the Court with the constant monitoring of such websites,
Plaintiffs are permitted to implead
mirror/redirect/alphanumeric variation websites which
provide access to the same websites/services of Defendants
Nos. 1 to 13 that have been injuncted, by filing an
appropriate application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC,
supported by affidavits and evidence, in terms of the
decision of this Court in UTV Software Communication
Ltd. v. 1337x.to Such application shall be listed before the
Joint Registrar, who on being satisfied with the material
placed on record, shall issue directions to disable access to
such mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites in India. ”
(emphasis supplied)
6
16.5. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc vs. http://www2.series9.io & ors
“ 25. In the present case, applying the test as laid down
in UTV Software (supra), and considering the documents filed
and the averments made in the plaint, which remained
uncontroverted, it has to be held that the defendant no. 1 and
51 are ‘rogue websites’, with their primary purpose being to
commit and facilitate infringement of the copyright of the
plaintiff. The plaintiff is therefore, held entitled to a decree in
terms of prayers made in paragraph no. 52(i), (ii) and (iii) of
the plaint.
26. In UTV Software (supra), the Court also
examined the issue of grant of dynamic injunctions and
permitted subsequent impleadment of
6
Order dt. 10.10.2022 in CS(COMM) 400/2019
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 740/2026 Page 13 of 18
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites which provide
access to the rogue websites, by filing an application under
Order I Rule 10 of the CPC before the learned Joint
Registrar (Judicial) along with an affidavit with supporting
evidence, confirming that the proposed website is
mirror/redirect/alphanumeric website of the injuncted
defendant websites. At the request of the counsel for the
plaintiff, the same directions are liable to be made in this
case also.
“ 27. Accordingly, I.A. No. 13800 of 2022 under Order
XIII-A of the CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes,
seeking a Summary Judgment is allowed. All the pending
applications are also disposed of. 28. The suit is decreed in
terms of prayers given in paragraph no. 52(i), (ii) and (iii) of
the plaint. Pursuant to the deletion of the defendant no. 12,
the prayer (iii) of the plaint is being decreed in favour of the
plaintiff and against only the defendant no. 11. The plaintiff
is also permitted to implead any
mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites which provide
access to the defendants nos. 1 and 51’s websites by filing
an appropriate application under Order I Rule 10 of the
CPC, supported by affidavits and evidence as directed in
UTV Software (supra). Any website impleaded as a result of
such application will be subject to the same decree . ”
(emphasis supplied)
17. On a perusal of the aforesaid extracts, it appears that this court has, over
time, moulded the relief to address the intractable malaise of infringing,
rogue websites that would resurface in different online locations and
iterations.
18. In some of these orders, the plaintiffs have been required to first move
the learned Joint Registrar under Order I Rule 10 CPC, with a supporting
affidavit, before the extended blocking direction takes effect. In others,
the DNRs and ISPs have been directed to act directly upon intimation by
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 740/2026 Page 14 of 18
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

the plaintiffs, with the plaintiffs’ obligation being only to place the fact
of such intimation before this court by way of an affidavit within 24
hours, and with the DNR/ISP retaining liberty to object. In yet others,
the DNRs and ISPs have been directed to act forthwith upon the
plaintiffs’ intimation, without any corresponding requirement of a prior
application or affidavit before the court in respect of that particular
category of website, though liberty is preserved separately for any
website considering itself unlawfully blocked to approach the court.
19. At the same time, this court is conscious, that in fashioning relief to
address the very real menace of online piracy, care must be taken not to
confer upon ISPs, DNRs, or the plaintiffs, powers that they do not
otherwise possess in law. An ISP or DNR is, in the ordinary course, a
neutral intermediary. It is not the function of such intermediary to
determine whether any particular website is a ‘rogue website’. Equally,
under the guise of a blocking direction, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted
to assume unto themselves the authority to identify and disable websites.
20. Any mechanism that requires an ISP or DNR to satisfy itself, upon its
own assessment, that a subsequently identified website is a ‘rogue
website’ engaged in infringement of the plaintiffs’ rights, would
effectively cast upon such intermediary an adjudicatory responsibility
that it is neither equipped nor authorised in law to discharge. Therefore,
the appropriate balance lies in ensuring that while the plaintiffs are not
required to approach this court afresh each time a rogue website comes
into existence, the ultimate determination of whether such website is
liable to be blocked must continue to rest with the court. Such decision
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 740/2026 Page 15 of 18
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

cannot be left either to the unilateral assessment of the plaintiffs or to the
sole satisfaction of an intermediary.
21. In the circumstances obtaining in the present case, in the opinion of this
court, the correct balance between the genuine apprehension expressed
by the plaintiffs and the necessity to refrain from passing an over-broad
ad-interim injunction that may affect non-rogue websites, would be
achieved by passing the following directions:
21.1.An ad-interim order of injunction is issued in favour of the plaintiff
and against the defendants in terms of para 11 (i), (ii) and (iii) , as
extracted above, till the next date of hearing, which will be subject
to the other directions that follow.
21.2.In the event the plaintiffs discover that mirror/alphanumeric/re-
direct websites of the identified defendant websites are, directly or
indirectly, infringing the plaintiffs’ copyright in their
cinematographic films/shows or other content that is subject matter
of the present suit, the plaintiffs would be at liberty to furnish to the
concerned ISP and/or DNR on affidavit the particulars of such other
websites along with supporting documentation evidencing that the
mirror/alphanumeric/re-direct websites are prima facie infringing
the plaintiff’s rights to their content. Thereupon, the concerned ISP
or DNR shall technically verify if the website(s) in question is/are
in fact mirror/alphanumeric/re-direct websites of the defendant
websites , and if so, they would enforce the injunction order granted
by this court against such website(s) as well, as a pro-tem measure.
21.3.Simultaneously with filing an affidavit with the concerned ISP
and/or DNR, the plaintiffs shall file an application seeking to
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 740/2026 Page 16 of 18
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

implead the mirror/alphanumeric/re-direct websites in the present
proceedings and such application shall be considered by the court.
21.4.It is clarified that if any assertion made by the plaintiffs in any
affidavit filed before the ISP and/or DNR and/or in any application
filed by them before the court is found to be baseless or false or not
bona-fidé , that would invite appropriate orders from the court.
22. This court is conscious of the fact that, under the law, for an intermediary
such as an ISP or a DNR to enjoy ‘safe harbour’ protection under section
79 of the Information Technology Act 2000, they must operate in a
strictly neutral manner; and an intermediary cannot be conferred with
any discretion to block websites merely on the asking of a party, like the
7
plaintiffs in this case . However, in the present case, what the court is
delegating is not the discretion for an ISP or a DNR to decide whether
or not to block a website; but only the task of technically verifying if a
given website, that is claimed by the plaintiffs to be rogue, is indeed a
mirror/alphanumeric/re-direct website of the defendant websites. The
role of the ISP or the DNR is only to the extent of the technical
verification. If at the plaintiffs’ request a website is technically found to
be a mirror/alphanumeric/re-direct website of the defendant websites,
the concerned ISP and/or DNR is required to enforce the ad-interim
injunction granted by the present order. Furthermore, it is
counterintuitive that the plaintiffs would seek blocking of a website to
which they have granted an appropriate license; and therefore, this court
7
Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1, paras 121, 122
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 740/2026 Page 17 of 18
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

does not discern any risk that the plaintiffs would misuse the direction
granted.
23. It is made clear that in a given case an ISP/DNR would also have the
liberty to approach this court for not blocking a website despite a request
received from the plaintiffs.
24. It is further clarified that blocking of any such website(s) by an ISP/DNR
shall purely be a pro-tem measure and shall be subject to further
directions of this court.
25. Plaintiffs are directed to comply with the provision of Order XXXIX
Rule 3 CPC within 10 days.
26. List before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings in this
th
application on 28 October 2026.
st
27. The date before court of 31 July 2026 shall remain as-is.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
JULY 27, 2026
hb/ds
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 740/2026 Page 18 of 18
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

SCHEDULE-A
Sr. No. Defendant Domain Domain URL IP Address
Defendant No. 1
172.67.201.65
1.
https://streamzy.to
streamzy.to
104.21.76.215
Defendant No. 2
172.67.213.56
2. mp4moviez.dad https://www.mp4moviez.dad/
104.21.23.198
172.67.163.163
3.
https://www.mp4moviez.fast
www.mp4moviez.fast
104.21.65.136
104.21.65.136
4. mp4moviez.fast https://mp4moviez.fast
172.67.163.163
172.67.218.156
https://mp4moviez.care
5. mp4moviez.care
104.21.78.82
104.21.38.211
172.67.168.124
https://www.mp4moviez.webca
6. mp4moviez.webcam
m/
172.67.163.104
https://www.mp4moviez.latino
7. mp4moviez.latino
104.21.74.215
172.67.190.206
https://mp4ys.com
8. mp4ys.com
104.21.20.15
172.67.172.170
9. mp4car.com https://mp4car.com
104.21.47.209
172.67.167.233
https://mp4pk.com
10. mp4pk.com
104.21.13.91
172.67.136.47
104.21.62.136
https://mp4hdmobilemovies.co
mp4hdmobilemovies.c
11.
om
m
172.67.130.49
https://mp4cafe.com
12. mp4cafe.com
104.21.7.112
104.21.79.223
https://mp4movie.club
13. mp4movie.club
172.67.171.147
104.21.93.217
14. mp4today.com https://mp4today.com
172.67.215.80
104.21.68.202
https://mp4cast.com
15. mp4cast.com
172.67.198.114
104.21.11.55
16. mp4hits.com https://mp4hits.com
172.67.191.67
172.67.199.89
https://mp4wapi.com
17. mp4wapi.com
104.21.21.159
18. mp4res.com 104.21.26.56
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

https://mp4res.com 172.67.135.143
104.21.61.89
https://mp4izle.com
19. mp4izle.com
172.67.207.251
https://mp4bao.com 172.67.168.46
20. mp4bao.com
104.21.96.2
https://mp4men.com
21. mp4men.com
172.67.150.71
104.21.11.221
22. mp4abc.com https://mp4abc.com
172.67.150.105
104.21.22.85
https://mp4sky.net
23. mp4sky.net
172.67.203.191
https://mp4some.com 104.21.84.74
24. mp4some.com
104.21.51.52
https://mp4villa.com
25. mp4villa.com
172.67.221.107
172.67.180.100
26.
mp4movie.me https://mp4movie.me
104.21.18.48
Defendant No. 3
172.67.202.232
27. watchseriestv.net https://watchseriestv.net
104.21.14.113
Defendant No. 4
172.67.130.4
28. kisskh.cam https://kisskh.cam
104.21.7.92
104.21.77.61
https://www.kisskh.ch
30. www.kisskh.ch
172.67.204.219
104.21.3.187
https://kisskh.buzz
31. kisskh.buzz
172.67.131.25
104.21.77.61
https://kisskh.ch
32. kisskh.ch
172.67.204.219
Defendant No. 5
172.67.187.201
https://www.1shows.org
33. www.1shows.org
104.21.84.68
172.67.187.201
https://1shows.org
34. 1shows.org
104.21.84.68
Defendant No. 6
https://www.cineplay.to 95.129.237.253
35. www.cineplay.to
36. cineplay.to https://cineplay.to 95.129.237.253
104.21.12.54
37. www.bitcine.tv https://www.bitcine.tv
172.67.193.175
172.67.193.175
https://bitcine.tv
38. bitcine.tv
104.21.12.54
Defendant No. 7
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

104.21.32.36
39. f-moviesz.to https://f-moviesz.to
172.67.182.155
172.67.190.239
https://fmovie.sx
40. fmovie.sx
104.21.76.66
172.67.140.38
41. www.fmovies.pw https://www.fmovies.pw
104.21.70.224
172.67.140.38
https://fmovies.pw
42. fmovies.pw
104.21.70.224
104.21.89.242
43. ww3-fmovies.com https://ww3-fmovies.com
172.67.192.27
104.21.53.234
https://ww2-fmovies.com
44. ww2-fmovies.com
172.67.219.235
104.21.7.180
https://fmoviess.org
45. fmoviess.org
172.67.137.38
Defendant No. 8
104.21.90.64
https://lordflix.org
46. lordflix.org
172.67.153.166
Defendant No. 9
104.21.54.94
47. en.yts.lu https://en.yts.lu
172.67.137.186
172.67.137.186
https://yts.lu
48. yts.lu
104.21.54.94
104.21.67.10
https://yts.si
49. yts.si
172.67.167.112
Defendant No. 10
104.21.78.158
50. cineb.sx https://cineb.sx
172.67.223.188
172.67.168.27
https://cineby.vg
51. cineby.vg
104.21.54.60
https://cineby.at 95.129.236.149
52. cineby.at
104.21.51.247
53. cineby.cc https://cineby.cc
172.67.192.66
Defendant No. 11
104.21.18.226
https://cinespot.to
54. cinespot.to
172.67.183.219
Defendant No. 12
104.21.91.162
https://cinehd.app/
55. cinehd.app
172.67.175.135
104.21.73.238
https://cinehd.xyz
56. cinehd.xyz
172.67.193.114
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

Defendant No. 13
172.67.134.12
57. moviesmod.at https://moviesmod.at
104.21.5.244
104.21.35.85
https://moviesmod.farm
58. moviesmod.farm
172.67.216.55
172.67.179.200
https://moviesmod.cards
59. moviesmod.cards
104.21.72.95
Defendant No. 14
104.21.10.201
https://vegamovie.ss/
60. vegamovie.ss
172.67.190.212
172.67.133.32
61. vegamovie.sn https://vegamovie.sn
104.21.13.213
104.21.83.144
https://vegamovie.co.in
62. vegamovie.co.in
172.67.177.112
172.67.213.221
63. vegamovie.sl https://vegamovie.sl
104.21.42.246
172.67.168.14
https://vegamovies.condos
64. vegamovies.condos
104.21.66.69
172.67.168.165
65. vegamovies.diamonds https://vegamovies.diamonds
104.21.94.198
104.21.5.40
https://vegamovies.nf
66. vegamovies.nf
172.67.132.240
104.21.63.40
https://vegamovies.navy
67. vegamovies.navy
172.67.169.117
104.21.73.172
68. vegamovies.hot https://vegamovies.hot
172.67.164.77
104.21.32.29
https://vegamovies.market
69. vegamovies.market
172.67.182.91
Defendant No. 15
104.21.34.147
https://9xflix.gdn
70. 9xflix.gdn
172.67.162.17
104.21.15.181
71. 9xflix.eu https://9xflix.eu
172.67.163.191
104.21.5.84
https://9xflix.kim
72. 9xflix.kim
172.67.133.54
104.21.46.51
73. 9xflix.cymru https://9xflix.cymru
172.67.223.223
Defendant No. 16
172.67.193.18
74. bollyflix.at https://bollyflix.at/
104.21.73.233
75. new.bollyflix.med 104.21.26.50
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

https://new.bollyflix.med/ 172.67.135.101
172.67.177.211
https://new.bollyflix.to
76. new.bollyflix.to
104.21.91.185
172.67.203.86
77. bollyflix.moda https://bollyflix.moda
104.21.22.72
Defendant No. 17
172.67.189.12
78. new2.hdhub4u.cl https://new2.hdhub4u.cl/
104.21.33.54
172.67.205.205
https://hdhub4u.med
79. hdhub4u.med
104.21.69.60
104.21.64.213
80. hdhub4u.glass https://hdhub4u.glass
172.67.136.174
Defendant No. 18
172.67.148.223
81. isaidub.ceo https://isaidub.ceo
104.21.47.157
172.67.136.125
https://isaidub.guru
82. isaidub.guru
104.21.7.151
Defendant No. 19
104.21.81.115
https://movies4u.mw/
83. movies4u.mw
172.67.189.80
172.67.130.127
84. movies4u.pn https://movies4u.pn
104.21.3.83
104.21.95.108
85. movies4u.ee https://movies4u.ee
172.67.144.162
104.21.89.52
86. movies4u.as https://movies4u.as
172.67.188.33
87. movies4.gr https://movies4u.gr / 104.21.31.223
88.222.243.170
88. movies4u.gl https://movies4u.gl
91.108.106.191
104.21.72.56
https://new3.movies4u.finance/
172.67.175.169
e
new3.movies4u.financ
89.
104.21.47.42
90. movies4u.review https://movies4u.review
172.67.144.113
104.21.74.19
https://movies4u.promo
91. movies4u.promo
172.67.167.142
104.21.20.225
https://movies4u.ist
92. movies4u.ist
172.67.194.183
104.21.42.196
93. movies4u.gift https://movies4u.gift
172.67.165.142
Defendant No. 20
94. www.moviezwap.llc 104.21.23.231
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

https://www.moviezwap.llc 172.67.214.33
104.21.23.231
https://moviezwap.llc
95. moviezwap.llc
172.67.214.33
104.21.48.83
96. moviezwap.love https://moviezwap.love
172.67.182.166
Defendant No. 21
104.21.86.110
97. multimovies.watch https://multimovies.watch
172.67.218.145
98. multimovies.makeup https://multimovies.makeup 49.44.79.236
https://multimovies.homes 49.44.79.236
99. multimovies.homes
Defendant No. 22
172.67.144.125
https://myflixerfree.org
100. myflixerfree.org
104.21.71.111
104.21.58.168
https://myflixerfree.com
101. myflixerfree.com
172.67.205.163
Defendant No. 23
172.67.69.137
https://vidbox.dev
102. vidbox.dev
104.26.6.124
172.67.142.219
https://vidbox.xyz
103. vidbox.xyz
104.21.54.219
Defendant No. 24
104.21.14.12
https://yomovies.foundation
104. yomovies.foundation
172.67.133.188
https://yomovies.courses 49.44.79.236
105. yomovies.courses
Defendant No. 25
172.67.169.89
106. hicine.app https://hicine.app
104.21.79.77
104.21.23.7
https://www.hicine.info
107. www.hicine.info
172.67.208.65
172.67.208.65
https://hicine.info
108. hicine.info
104.21.23.7
Defendant No. 26
172.67.146.108
https://seriesonline.stream
109. seriesonline.stream
104.21.39.152
Defendant No. 27
104.21.20.10
110. 5movierulz.limited https://www.5movierulz.limited
172.67.190.195
172.67.157.83
https://5movierulz.house
111. 5movierulz.house
104.21.13.200
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

104.21.26.205
112. 5movierulz.forsale https://5movierulz.forsale
172.67.168.137
172.67.167.141
https://5movierulz.camera
113. 5movierulz.camera
104.21.74.18
104.21.41.160
114. 5movierulz.capital https://5movierulz.capital
172.67.148.56
104.21.35.46
https://5movierulz.markets
115. 5movierulz.markets
172.67.213.158
Defendant No. 28
104.21.40.229
https://www.filmyzilla45.com
122. www.filmyzilla45.com
172.67.157.145
172.67.157.145
123. filmyzilla45.com https://filmyzilla45.com
104.21.40.229
172.67.191.44
https://filmyzilla43.com
124. filmyzilla43.com
104.21.49.152
104.21.61.171
https://filmyzilla40.com
125. filmyzilla40.com
172.67.212.97
172.67.215.28
126. filmyzilla39.com https://filmyzilla39.com
104.21.78.26
172.67.138.113
https://filmyzilla38.com
127. filmyzilla38.com
104.21.56.241
172.67.206.93
128. filmyzilla37.com https://filmyzilla37.com
104.21.22.179
104.21.38.14
https://filmyzilla36.com
129. filmyzilla36.com
172.67.217.11
Defendant No. 29
104.21.75.203
https://uhdmovies.casa
130. uhdmovies.casa
172.67.181.86
172.67.141.130
131. uhdmovies.pink https://uhdmovies.pink
104.21.87.49
49.44.79.236
https://uhdmovies.food
132. uhdmovies.food
104.21.92.225
https://uhdmovies.rodeo
133. uhdmovies.rodeo
172.67.199.42
Defendant No. 30
172.67.129.54
134. filmyfly.luxe https://filmyfly.luxe
104.21.1.122
172.67.167.44
https://filmyfly.cafe
135. filmyfly.cafe
104.21.35.12
172.67.221.93
https://filmyfly.host
136. filmyfly.host
104.21.67.104
137. filmdar.com https://filmdar.com/ 104.21.7.253
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51
Signature Not Verified

172.67.156.145
172.67.195.170
https://filmleo.com
138. filmleo.com
104.21.21.12
104.21.33.212
139. uncfilm.com https://uncfilm.com
172.67.166.219
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

SCHEDULE-B
Defendant No. DNR Domain Names
31. Porkbun LLC cineby.cc
32. Tucows Domains Inc. www.1shows.org
1shows.org
fmoviess.org
cinehd.app
moviesmod.farm
moviesmod.cards
vegamovies.navy
vegamovies.market
9xflix.kim
9xflix.cymru
bollyflix.moda
hdhub4u.glass
vidbox.dev
uhdmovies.pink
uhdmovies.rodeo
bollyflix.moda
hdhub4u.glass
movies4u.review
movies4u.promo
movies4u.ist
movies4u.gift
33. NameSilo, LLC seriesonline.stream
filmyfly.host
34. Tonic Registry Streamzy.to
bollyflix.to
cinespot.to
35. Spaceship, Inc. ww2-fmovies.com
myflixerfree.org
movies4u.finance
36. Immaterialism Limited www.bitcine.tv
bitcine.tv
9xflix.eu
movies4u.gl
37. Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a
cineby.at
multimovies.watch
multimovies.makeup
Registrar.eu
hicine.app
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

www.hicine.info
hicine.info
38. Dynadot Inc mp4ys.com
mp4car.com
mp4pk.com
mp4hdmobilemovies.com
mp4cafe.com
mp4movie.club
mp4today.com
mp4cast.com
mp4hits.com
mp4wapi.com
mp4res.com
mp4izle.com
mp4bao.com
mp4men.com
mp4abc.com
mp4sky.net
mp4some.com
mp4villa.com
mp4movie.me
www.fmovies.pw
fmovies.pw
moviesmod.at
vegamovie.co.in
vegamovies.condos
vegamovies.diamonds
bollyflix.at
bollyflix.med
new2.hdhub4u.cl
hdhub4u.med
isaidub.ceo
isaidub.guru
movies4u.mw
movies4u.as
5movierulz.limited
5movierulz.house
5movierulz.markets
filmyzilla45.in
uhdmovies.casa
uhdmovies.food
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51
Signature Not Verified

filmdar.com
filmleo.com
uncfilm.com
39. NameCheap, Inc. kisskh.cam
kisskh.buzz
mp4moviez.dad
mp4moviez.care
mp4moviez.webcam
mp4moviez.latino
f-moviesz.to
lordflix.org
cinehd.xyz
www.moviezwap.llc
moviezwap.llc
moviezwap.love
multimovies.homes
vidbox.xyz
yomovies.foundation
yomovies.courses
40. NETIM vegamovie.sn
vegamovie.sl
41. Key-Systems GmbH www.kisskh.ch
kisskh.ch
fmovie.sx
en.yts.lu
yts.lu
cineb.sx
vegamovies.nf
9xflix.gdn
42. Internet Domain Service BS
ww3-fmovies.com
www.filmyzilla45.com
Corp
filmyzilla45.com
filmyzilla43.com
filmyzilla40.com
filmyzilla39.com
filmyzilla38.com
filmyzilla37.com
filmyzilla36.com
43. Atak Domain Bilgi
filmyzilla41.com
www.filmyzilla41.com
Teknolojileri A.S.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51

44. Nicenic International Group
www.cineplay.to
Co., Limited
cineplay.to
cineby.vg
filmyfly.cafe
45. NicNames, Inc. 5movierulz.forsale
5movierulz.camera
5movierulz.capital
46. Ultahost, Inc. watchseriestv.net
47. SafeBrands (now
yts.si
Brandshelter)
48. Afriregister South Sudan vegamovie.ss
49. Alfanet OÜ movies4u.ee
50. IONOS SE myflixerfree.com
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 14:51