I.A. No. 31780/2025 (Exemption)

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The Application stands disposed of.

I.A. No. 31781/2025 (U/S 80 CPC)

3. The present Application has been filed under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") seeking exemption from issuing Notice to Defendant No. 80, Department of Telecommunications ("DoT"), and Defendant No. 81, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology ("MeITY").

4. In view of the urgent relief and the nature of relief sought against Defendant Nos. 80 and 81, the Plaintiffs are exempted from effecting two months' prior notice under Section 80 of the CPC upon Defendant Nos. 80 and 81.

5. The Application stands disposed of.

I.A. No. 31783/2025 (Extension of time to file Court Fees)

6. The present Application has been filed by the Plaintiffs under Section 149 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking exemption from payment of Court Fees at the time of the filing of the Suit.

7. Considering the submissions made in the present Application, time of two weeks is granted to deposit the Court Fees.

8. The Application stands disposed of.

CS(COMM) 1361/2025

9. Let the Plaint be registered as a Suit.

10. Issue Summons. The learned Counsel for Defendant Nos. 48 and 56 accepts Summons. Let the Summons be served to the remaining Defendants through all permissible modes upon filing of the Process Fee.

11. The Summons shall state that the Written Statement(s) shall be filed by the Defendants within 30 days from the date of the receipt of Summons. Along with the Written Statement(s), the Defendants shall also file Affidavit(s) of Admission / Denial of the documents of the Plaintiff(s), without which the Written Statement(s) shall not be taken on record.

12. Liberty is granted to the Plaintiffs to file Replication(s), if any, within 30 days from the receipt of the Written Statement(s). Along with the Replication(s) filed by the Plaintiffs, Affidavit(s) of Admission / Denial of the documents of Defendants be filed by the Plaintiffs, without which the Replication(s) shall not be taken on record.

13. In case any Party is placing reliance on a document, which is not in their power and possession, its details and source shall be mentioned in the list of reliance, which shall also be filed with the pleadings.

14. If any of the Parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the prescribed timelines.

15. The learned Counsel for Defendant No. 56 submits that the Domain Name Registrar impleaded as Defendant No. 70, is not a separate entity and is part of the Defendant No. 56 and has submitted that Defendant No. 70 be deleted from the array of parties and the directions required to be passed against Defendant No. 70 will be complied by Defendant No. 56 and therefore Defendant No. 56 may be deleted from the Array of the Parties. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs does not object to this request as long as the directions passed by this Court are complied with.

16. Accordingly, Defendant No. 70 is deleted from the Array of the Parties. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff shall file the Amended Memo of Parties within a period of two weeks.

17. List before the learned Joint Registrar on 18.02.2026 for completion of service and pleadings.

I.A. No. 31782/2025 (O-XI R-1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

18. The present Application has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC as applicable to Commercial Suits under the CC Act seeking leave to place on record additional documents.

19. The Plaintiffs are permitted to file additional documents in accordance with the provisions of the CC Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

20. Accordingly, the Application stands disposed of.

I.A. No. 31779/2025 (U/O XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC)

21. Issue Notice. The learned Counsel for Defendant Nos. 48 and 56 accepts Notice. Let the Notice be served to the remaining Defendants through all permissible modes upon filing of the Process Fees.

22. The present Suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction, restraining Defendant Nos. 1 to 47 from infringing the exclusive rights in the Plaintiffs' original content / work by making their original content /work available for downloading, streaming, uploading and reproducing, along with other ancillary reliefs.

23. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs made the following submissions:

          23.1. The Plaintiffs are members of Motion Picture Association, Inc. and / or the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment. The Plaintiffs are amongst the leading global entertainment companies engaged in the business of creation, production and distribution of motion pictures / cinematographic films ("Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works"). The Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works are covered under 'work' as defined under Section 2(y) of the Copyright Act, 1957 ("Act").

          23.2. The Plaintiffs have all the rights under Section 14(d) of the Act in such cinematograph films / shows. The Plaintiffs are the author and / or first owner and / or owners and /or exclusive distributors of the Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works in India. The illustrative list of Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works that are the subject matter of the present Suit and are entitled to protection under the Act are set out as below:







          23.3. The Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works are released or published in India, they are entitled to protection under Sections 13(1), 13(2), and 13(5) of the Act. Even in cases where the Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works are not first published in India, they are still protected under Section 40 of the Act, which extends copyright protection to foreign works. The Plaintiffs have exclusive rights to communicate the Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works to the public.

          23.4. The Plaintiffs have filed the present Suit against Defendant Nos. 1 to 47 ("Infringing Website") which substantially indulge in online piracy by making available for download and otherwise providing access to infringing and illegal content.

          23.5. The Infringing Websites are primarily and substantially engaged in, inter alia, communicating to the public, hosting, uploading, streaming, reproducing, downloading, broadcasting, distributing and / or making available to the public, the Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works, without authorization, and / or facilitating the same. The Infringing Websites are making available, illegally and unauthorizedly, the Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works.

          23.6. The Plaintiffs issued take-down notices to the Infringing Websites dated 05.12.2025. Despite receiving the take-down notices, Defendant Nos. 1 to 47 continue to infringe the rights in the Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works. The Infringing Websites are liable for infringement under Sections 51(a)(ii), 51(b), and Section 51(a)(i) of the Act, for making a copy of the Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works including the storing of it in any medium, electronic or other means and communicating the Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works to the public. Further, the hosting, streaming, reproducing, distributing, making available to the public, and / or communicating to the public of the Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works, or facilitating the same, without authorization of the Plaintiffs amounts to violation of the Copyright of the Plaintiffs in the Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works, protected under the Act.

          23.7. Defendant Nos. 48 to 70 are the Domain Name Registrars ("DNRs") which are being arrayed for the limited purpose of locking and suspending the Infringing Websites. Defendant Nos. 71 to 79 are the Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") which are being arrayed for the limited purpose of restricting or blocking access to the Infringing Websites in India. Defendant Nos. 80 and 81 the DoT and MeITY respectively, which are Government departments and are being arrayed for the limited purpose to issue notification calling upon ISPs to block access to the Infringing Websites identified in the present Suit as also such other websites which are subsequently discovered to be infringing the rights of the Plaintiffs. Defendant No. 82, Toho Co. Ltd., is the Copyright owner of the work, for which Plaintiff No. 5 is the exclusive distributor, in India. Defendant No. 82 has been arrayed in the Suit in compliance with Section 61 of the Act.

24. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff's, the pleadings and the documents on record it is clear that the Plaintiffs are the owners of the Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works. Having perused the screenshots of the Infringing Websites, it is revealed that the Infringing Websites are, on real-time basis, offering for viewing and downloading the Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works, without their consent or a valid license, resulting in financial losses to the Plaintiffs.

25. The Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Infringing Websites. Irreparable injury would be caused to the Plaintiffs if an ex-parte ad- interim injunction is not granted. The need for immediate relief is particularly pressing in this case as the Infringing Websites are making available the Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works, which could lead to significant financial losses for the Plaintiffs. Therefore, swift action to prevent the alleged infringements is crucial in the present case.

26. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, it is directed as under:

          I. Defendant Nos. 1 to 47, 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, are restrained 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, the Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works, i.e., cinematographic work /content / programme / show in relation to which Plaintiffs have copyright or exclusive distribution rights / and or any other right, as enlisted in SCHEDULE-A annexed with this Order.

          II. Defendant Nos. 48 to 69, i.e., the ONRs as enlisted in SCHEDULE-B annexed with this Order, shall lock and suspend Defendant Nos. 1 to 47 websites within 72 hours of being communicated with a copy of this Order and shall file all the Basic Subscriber Information, including the name, address, contact information, email addresses, bank details, IP logs, and any other relevant information available of the owners / operators of Defendant Nos. 1 to 47 in a sealed cover / password protected document within four weeks of being communicated with a copy of this Order.

          III. Defendant Nos. 71 to 79, i.e., the ISPs, shall to block access to the Defendant Nos. 1 to 47 websites identified by the Plaintiffs annexed as SCHEDULE-A with this Order within 72 hours of being communicated with a copy of this Order.

27. 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 the Plaintiffs' 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 the Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works being uploaded on Infringing Websites or their newer versions immediately thereafter. The Plaintiffs are permitted to implead any mirror / redirect / alphanumeric variations of the websites identified in the Suit as Defendants Nos. 1 to 47, 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 of the CPC and extend the present Order against them, in the event such websites merely provide new means of accessing the same primary Infringing Websites that have been injuncted.

28. If any website, which is not primarily an infringing website, is blocked pursuant to the present Order, they shall be permitted to approach the Court by filing an Affidavit that it does not intend to engage in any unauthorized or illegal dissemination of the Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works. In such a situation, the Court would consider modifying the injunction as the facts and circumstances so warrant.

29. Let the Reply to the present Application be filed within four weeks after service of Notice. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.

30. The compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC be done within two weeks.

31. List before Court on 20.04.2026.