Delhi HC orders permanent block of 63 piracy websites streaming copyrighted films

• Download the court order here. 

The Delhi High Court on October 7, 2026, permanently restrained 63 websites, including 123MoviesHub and Putlocker domains, from hosting, streaming, reproducing or distributing films and other audiovisual works copyrighted by six major entertainment companies. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the judgment in a copyright infringement suit filed by Universal City Studios LLC, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Columbia Pictures Industries Inc., Netflix Studios LLC, Paramount Pictures Corporation and Disney Enterprises Inc. 

The studios alleged that the websites made their copyrighted content available for viewing and download without licences. The court ruled that it could decide the suit without oral evidence or a separate application for summary judgment, as the defendants had not contested the claims despite receiving notice.

What the court said: The court held that Rule 27 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, allowed it to pass summary judgment without a specific application. It noted that the defendants had received notice of the claims and supporting documents over four years earlier but had chosen not to appear. 

The court said it was “only testing the uncontroverted pleadings and documents against the standard in Rule 3 of Order XIIIA CPC”. It also found no reason to require oral evidence, observing that further affidavits “would add nothing to what is already on record and would only be a repetition of the plaint”. The court concluded that the websites had no real prospect of successfully defending the copyright infringement claims and decreed the suit.

How rogue websites should be identified: Relying on its earlier ruling in UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.to (2019), the court applied the factors laid down to identify flagrantly infringing online locations, also called rogue websites. These include whether a website’s primary purpose is to commit or facilitate copyright infringement; the flagrancy of the infringement; whether registrant details are concealed; and whether the website ignores copyright takedown notices. 

Other factors include whether it provides directories or indexes that facilitate infringement, demonstrates disregard for copyright, has been blocked by courts elsewhere, or provides instructions to circumvent blocking orders. Traffic levels and other relevant circumstances may also be considered. The court clarified that these factors are “illustrative and not exhaustive” and do not apply to intermediaries, which operate under a different legal framework.

Plaintiffs can implead mirror domains: The court allowed the studios to implead mirror, redirect and alphanumeric websites that provide alternative ways to access the websites covered by the injunction, through an appropriate application. It also directed ISPs to block the identified websites. However, while the order permits the plaintiffs to seek the addition of such domains, it does not expressly grant a dynamic injunction. The decree further specifies that each plaintiff can benefit only in respect of works for which it holds copyright.

Also read:

• When John Doe orders go beyond piracy, who decides what gets taken down?
• Explained: What amicus Gautam Bhatia’s brief asks the Delhi HC to change in personality rights cases