{"id":149351,"date":"2026-04-10T13:50:22","date_gmt":"2026-04-10T08:20:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/?p=149351"},"modified":"2026-04-10T13:50:22","modified_gmt":"2026-04-10T08:20:22","slug":"copyright-infringement-injunction-rogue-websites-euphoria-delhi-high-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/copyright-infringement-injunction-rogue-websites-euphoria-delhi-high-court\/","title":{"rendered":"No Euphoria for Pirates: Copyright infringement injunction against rogue websites"},"content":{"rendered":"
Facts<\/h5>\n
The Plaintiff, Home Box Office Inc (HBO), is the producer and copyright owner of the series Euphoria. HBO stated that it spent large sums of money in production of this series and actively promoted the upcoming season prior to release. HBO asserted that the series and its upcoming season are works of visual recording including sound recording and qualify as “Cinematographic Film” under the provisions of Copyright Act, 1957. By virtue of provisions of Section 40 of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with the International Copyright Order, 1999, the rights of HBO are recognised, protected and enforceable in India. HBO approached the Delhi High Court prior to the Indian release of the new season of Euphoria on JioHotstar. It alleged that several rogue websites and related domain names were likely to stream, host, reproduce, distribute, and make the series available without a license. HBO also submitted material to show earlier blocking actions against similar websites and gave details of the websites, registrars, and internet service intermediaries involved.<\/div>\n
Issues and Analysis<\/h5>\n
The court considered whether HBO had made out a case for an ex parte ad interim injunction against the identified rogue websites and their mirror or redirect websites. Second, it considered whether relief could also extend beyond the website operators to domain name registrars, internet service providers, DoT, and MeitY, so that access to the infringing websites could be locked, suspended, or blocked quickly and effectively.<\/div>\n
The court observed that HBO had established ownership and exclusive rights in the series and that unauthorised dissemination, especially around the release window, would erode commercial value and cause irreparable injury. The court noted that rogue websites damage both revenue and the privacy of copyrighted content, and that delay in blocking access would defeat effective protection. Thus, the court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the identified defendants and all persons acting for them from hosting, streaming, reproducing, distributing, or making available Euphoria and its upcoming season. The court also directed domain name registrars to lock and suspend the domain names and disclose registrant details, directed internet service providers to block access, and directed DoT and MeitY to notify ISPs to block the infringing websites, while also permitting HBO to seek extension of the injunction against newly discovered infringing websites.<\/div>\n
Case Citation: <\/strong><\/em><\/h5>\n

Home Box Office Inc vs Moviebox.Ph & Ors, CS(COMM) 358\/2026, Delhi High Court on 6th April, 2026. Available at: https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/90559676\/<\/u><\/a><\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n

Authored by Ms. Ashwini Arun.<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of HBO, to protect Euphoria from online piracy ahead of its India release. The court noted that rogue websites could cause immediate commercial harm and directed blocking measures against the identified websites.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":149354,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":54,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5495,3,6],"tags":[6109,1127,2069,31,486,12038,4713,8654,5446],"class_list":["post-149351","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-case-reviews","category-copyrights","category-intellectual-property","tag-ad-interim-injunction","tag-cinematographic-film","tag-copyright-act-1957","tag-copyright-infringement","tag-delhi-high-court","tag-domain-name-registrars","tag-ex-parte-injunction","tag-internet-service-providers","tag-rogue-websites"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149351","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=149351"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149351\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":149358,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149351\/revisions\/149358"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/149354"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149351"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149351"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149351"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}