Research and Articles

• The Delhi High Court clarifies that Domain Name Registrars (“DNRs”) and Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) as “neutral intermediaries”, cannot independently determine whether a website infringes copyright. The responsibility for deciding whether a website should be blocked rests exclusively with the Court.

• To balance effective copyright enforcement with the limited role of intermediaries, the Court prescribes a structured mechanism under which Plaintiffs may notify DNRs/ISPs of mirror/redirect/alphanumeric variations of rogue websites, while simultaneously seeking the Court's approval through an impleadment application.

• While the judgment provides important guidance on the obligations of DNRs and ISPs, it also highlights inconsistencies with earlier Delhi High Court decisions on safe harbour protection and dynamic injunctions, underscoring the need for judicial and legislative clarity on the role of intermediaries in combating online piracy.

BACKGROUND

Home Box Office Inc. and other production houses ("Plaintiffs") instituted a commercial suit¹ along with an application for interim injunction against a number of websites that were illegally streaming the Plaintiffs' films and television shows without any licence or authorisation (“Rogue Websites”). Many of these works were made available immediately after release, and in some cases, even before their official release.

Recognising that effective enforcement required action not only against the infringing websites but also against the intermediaries that enabled their operation and accessibility, the Plaintiffs impleaded sixty-one defendants across four categories and sought the following reliefs:

ARGUMENTS BY PARTIES ON INTERMEDIARY OBLIGATION

The Plaintiffs argued that the DNRs, by virtue of their privacy protection policies, mask the identity of the registrants of the Rogue Websites, thereby rendering it impossible for the Plaintiffs to identify and initiate proceedings against the persons operating such websites. According to the Plaintiffs, by concealing the identity of the registrants in this manner, the DNRs effectively facilitate the continued infringement of the Plaintiffs' copyrighted works. It was further contended that, unless the reliefs sought against the DNRs and ISPs were granted, the operators of the Rogue Websites would continue to circumvent any injunction order by creating mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric websites, allowing them to persist with their infringing activities with impunity.

In response, the DNRs submitted that they had no objection to blocking the Rogue Websites specifically identified in the plaint. However, they opposed the grant of a blanket injunction permitting the Plaintiffs to seek the blocking of any additional websites identified during the course of the suit merely by filing an affidavit. According to the DNRs, such a direction would effectively require the DNRs/ISPs to determine whether the newly identified websites were infringing and, on the basis of that determination, proceed to block them. The DNRs argued that such a determination is an adjudicatory function that falls exclusively within the domain of the courts and cannot be delegated to intermediaries.

TAKEAWAY

Under ICANN's Registration Data Policy, DNRs are required to maintain a disclosure request mechanism through which registrant information may be disclosed where a requester demonstrates a legitimate interest². If the Plaintiffs' primary concern is that the registrant details are masked, they may first seek disclosure of the relevant registrant information from the concerned DNR in accordance with its disclosure request policy and proceed against the identified registrant.

If the registrant information is found to be inaccurate or the DNR refuses to disclose the requested information despite a legitimate request, the Plaintiffs may then institute proceed with a commercial suit impleading the concerned DNR. Adopting this approach would enable the Plaintiffs to identify the actual wrongdoer at the outset and pursue a more targeted and efficient remedy, instead of impleading intermediaries in the first instance. 

COURTS OBSERVATIONS

• DNRs/ISPs Are Intermediaries and Enjoy Safe Harbour Protection: DNRs/ISPs are in the ordinary course mere neutral intermediaries and do not possess power under law to block any Rogue Websites in its own violation. The Court further observed that DNRs/ISPs by virtue of being an intermediary enjoy “safe harbour” protection under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”)

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

The Court's observation that DNRs, by virtue of being neutral intermediaries, are entitled to safe harbour protection appears to be at odds with the coordinate bench's decision in Snapdeal Private Limited v. GoDaddy.com LLC & Ors³ (“Snapdeal Judgement”). In Snapdeal Judgement, the Court held that although DNRs are intermediaries under the IT Act, they are not entitled to safe harbour protection because they operate with a commercial intent and earn profits from their services. In the present case, however, the Court did not examine this issue in detail. Instead, it relied on a statutory interpretation and observed that DNRs operate in a "strictly neutral manner". It may therefore be argued that the Court reached its conclusion without considering the reasoning adopted in Snapdeal Judgement, namely, whether a DNR's commercial motive has any bearing on its entitlement to safe harbour. At the same time, the present judgment may also be read as suggesting that the key test for safe harbour is whether an intermediary performs a neutral and passive role, and not whether it operates for profit. If so, the focus shifts from the intermediary's business model to the nature of the role it plays.

Since the Snapdeal Judgment is currently under appeal before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, it will be interesting to see how the appellate court addresses the observations made in the present judgment and whether it reconciles the apparent difference between the two decisions.

• Court, Not Intermediaries, Can Block Domain Names: DNRs/ISPs cannot be required to decide for themselves whether a website infringes a copyright owner's rights. They are neither equipped nor legally authorised to make such adjudications. The responsibility of deciding whether a website is infringing, and whether it should be blocked, rests with the Court and cannot be delegated to intermediaries.

• Process for Taking Down Rogue Websites by DNRs/Intermediaries: To balance the Plaintiffs' right to an effective remedy, while ensuring that DNRs/ISPs are not required to determine whether a domain name is infringing, the Court prescribes the following procedure for taking down Rogue Websites:

  a) The reliefs sought against the Rogue Websites, DNRs, and ISPs are allowed until the next date of hearing, subject to the conditions set out below.

  [Note: While the Court’s interim order states that reliefs granted shall remain in force “till the next date of hearing” (i.e., July 31, 2026). Since the next date of hearing is only four days after the order was passed, this appears to be a typographical error. If read literally, the injunction against the Rogue Websites and the directions issued to the DNRs/ISPs would remain operative for only four days, rendering the detailed procedure prescribed by the Court for identifying and blocking future mirror, redirect, and alphanumeric variations largely ineffective. It therefore appears that the Court intended the interim directions to remain in force during the pendency of the suit. To avoid any ambiguity, the parties may consider filing a modification application seeking clarification of the operative portion of the order]

  b) The Plaintiffs are at liberty to furnish details of any mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric variations of the Rogue Websites to the concerned DNRs/ISPs. Upon receipt of such an affidavit, the DNRs shall "technically verify" whether the identified websites are in fact mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric variations of the Rogue Websites and, if so, shall give effect to the injunction granted by the Court.

  c) Simultaneously, while filing the affidavit, the Plaintiffs shall also file an application seeking to implead such mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric variations of the Rogue Websites, which shall be considered by the Court.

  The Court further clarifies that the DNRs/ISPs are at liberty to approach the Court if they believe that a website ought not to be blocked despite receiving a request from the Plaintiffs.

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

• Scope of the DNRs' and ISPs' Obligation to "Technically Verify" Websites Remains Unclear: The Court directs the DNRs/ISPs to "technically verify" whether the websites identified by the Plaintiffs are in fact mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric variations of the Rogue Websites. However, the order does not clarify what this obligation entails. This ambiguity is particularly significant because the Court also clarifies that DNRs/ISPs cannot adjudicate whether a website infringes the Plaintiffs' rights. 

  One possible interpretation is that the Court only requires the DNRs/ISPs to undertake a limited technical verification, namely, to ascertain whether the identified website is a mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric variation of a website that has already been injuncted by the Court (e.g., if the injuncted website is abc.com, the DNRs/ISPs would only be required to verify whether websites such as abc1.com, abc123.com, or ab-c.com are mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric variations of abc.com). They should not be required to examine the contents of such websites to determine whether they infringe the Plaintiffs' copyright, as such a determination constitutes an adjudicatory function that falls exclusively within the domain of the Court. However, the judgment does not expressly clarify the scope of this obligation, and the issue therefore remains open to interpretation. Accordingly, the parties may consider seeking clarification from the Court. 

• Departure from Earlier Precedent:The order significantly narrows the scope of dynamic injunctions. Based on the interim order, the relief appears to be confined to mirror, redirect, alphanumeric, and similar variations of the rogue websites specifically identified in the plaint. This represents a departure from the approach adopted by the coordinate bench of the Delhi High Court in Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.⁴, where the Court held that, in cases involving well-known, invented, arbitrary, or fanciful trademarks that have acquired reputation and goodwill in India, domain name registrars must, pursuant to a court-ordered injunction, refrain from making available not only the infringing domain names but also any mirror, redirect, alphanumeric, or extension-based variations thereof. This places both judgments at loggerheads, as the obligations they impose and the underlying rationale for doing so are materially different.

CONCLUSION

The judgment is undoubtedly a significant development in judicial efforts to combat online piracy. It provides much-needed clarity on the status of DNRs as intermediaries and lays down a structured framework governing their obligations in website-blocking disputes. At the same time, however, it also brings into focus a broader jurisprudential concern. As discussed above, different coordinate benches of the Delhi High Court have adopted divergent approaches on key questions relating to the role, liability, and obligations of DNRs and ISPs. These conflicting decisions create uncertainty by imposing inconsistent compliance obligations on intermediaries, making it difficult for them to adopt a uniform approach when responding to blocking requests and court orders.

In the short term, there is a pressing need for the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court to resolve these inconsistencies and lay down a clear and uniform legal standard governing the obligations of DNRs and ISPs in such disputes. A settled position of law would not only provide certainty to intermediaries but would also ensure greater consistency in the enforcement of intellectual property rights.

In the longer term, the continuing divergence in judicial approaches highlights the limitations of the existing statutory framework in addressing modern forms of online piracy. As digital piracy continues to evolve, it is increasingly evident that the present legal regime does not comprehensively define the role and responsibilities of DNRs in such disputes. Legislative intervention is therefore necessary. Parliament should consider amending the existing legal framework to clearly define the obligations of DNRs and other intermediaries, thereby balancing effective enforcement of intellectual property rights with legal certainty for intermediaries and safeguarding the interests of all stakeholders.

Pradyumn Sharma
You can direct your queries or comments to the author.

¹Home Box Office Inc. and Ors. v. Streamzy.To and Ors., Delhi High Court, CS (COMM) 740/2026

²Section 10.5, ICANN’s Registrant Data Policy (can be accessed: here)

³Snapdeal Private Limited v. GoDaddy.com LLC and Ors., Delhi High Court, CS (COMM) 176/2021

⁴Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors, Delhi High Court, CS (COMM) 135/2022