Author : Jaya Falod
College: ICFAI University
Abstract
The rapid rise of Over-The-Top (OTT) streaming has been matched by a sprawling digital piracy system that is beyond any control. This paper looks into the “Whack-A-Mole” problem of copyright enforcement that fails due to the persistence of piracy websites that bring up mirror sites right after being blocked. Available today in India, the concepts of Dynamic and Superlative injunctions under Section 37 of the Copyright Act of 1957 reached their full form thanks to the rulings of the Delhi High Court. By analyzing the latest sudden-blocking orders used for some of the biggest international events of sports and entertainment this paper provides an understanding of how right-owners can require Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to remove piracy websites while the injurious content keeps appearing online.
To the Point
The Main Issue: John Doe piracy blocking orders are outdated and used by offending sites to create lookalike sites and new IP addresses in seconds (the “Whack-A-Mole” phenomenon).
The Solution from the Law: The Delhi High Court introduced Dynamic Injunctions, so that the owner of a copyright could expand an existing order to the pirated site without having to file another case.
The New Step: The Court has taken the idea further and has now created Super Dynamic Injunctions for live events, so that while the event (like sports or OTT releases) is happening, the links get identified and blocked in a matter of minutes.
The Legal Framework: The measures are taken with the means of the judiciary system using its inherent powers as well as Section 37 of the Copyright Act 1957 (the right of Broadcast Reproduction).
Use of Legal Jargon
John Doe Orders: Referring to the injunction delivered without hearing defendants, which prevents unidentified defendants from infringing copyright.
Dynamic Injunction: Referring to the type of injunction, which permits continuous application of an existing order without the necessity of initiating any new legal proceedings.
Dynamic+ Injunction: Essentially, an advanced type of injunction, which offers wider protection than dynamic injunctions by providing automatic protection of works subject to copyright.
Superlative Injunction: Referring to the type of injunction used for live telecasts allowing immediate coordination with ISPs to block signals within a short period of time.
Broadcasting Reproduction Right: Referring to a right conferred on the broadcasting agencies by the Copyright Act,1957, to have full control over the transmission of the signals.
Prima Facie Case: This is the preliminary evidence a plaintiff needs to clear in order to prove the fact of the legal injury “at first sight”, which is necessary for obtaining temporary injunction relief.
Hydra-Headed Infringement: This is a legal term used by the courts to portray the phenomenon of online piracy that has the nature of a hydra whereby taking down one server leads to the immediate emergence of a number of other websites.
Case Laws
In case of UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.TO (2019): The case is important since it was the first one where India saw the introduction of “Dynamic Injunctions” by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. It laid down the qualitative factors to recognize a website as a “rogue website” and allowed the plaintiffs to file for new mirror websites through the Joint Registrar and not as new cases.
In the case of Universal City Studios LLC v. Dotmovies.baby (2023): This case marks the advent of “Dynamic+ Injunction”.Acknowledging the pace at which streaming piracy operates, the court broadened the scope of ex-files protection to any future film content as soon as they are created to prevent hydra websites from accessing new films.
Fully reshaping the intellectual property rights world, the case Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors. (2025) was the first one to introduce the “Super Injunction.” The ruling was based on the real-time communication channels between the right holders and the Internet Providers, allowing the blocking of illegal apps and streams immediately after they started.
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. Soccerbox.Me & Ors. (2026) also took place recently, with a top TV licensing case being ruled over in the court. The case was related to the FIFA World Cup 2026 broadcast rights and saw the confirmation of Section 37 (Broadcast Reproduction Rights) application with a dynamic superlative injunction issued to intangible mirror URLs and illegal mobile apps.
The Proof
Setting the “Rogue” Prima Facie Benchmark: To obtain a comprehensive court order for blocking a particular website, the party in question has to demonstrate that there’s a reasonable basis to believe that the defendant’s website performs primarily that function. Following the legal rationale set out in UTV Software, rights holders offer evidence of screenshots taken from the monitored stock, the analysis of traffic directed to the website, and the proof that the details of the registrant have been concealed. This means that the defendant is engineered not to disclose who runs the website through the application of domain privacy services
.
Detection of Links in Real-Time: In relation to fast-moving events (such as the IPL or FIFA World Cup), timeliness is crucial. According to Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), rights holders are required to submit records of electronic monitoring in real-time. Such records involve the collection of metadata logs in automatic mode and URL addresses in the course of the broadcast, which allows demonstrating that the infringing website mirrors the encrypted signal.
Proving Irreparable Damage: The argument for omitting the steps from the regular process (such as absence of need to initiate a new claim in court when infringers are involved) is based on proof of immediate economic death. In this respect, rights holders provide numbers to prove that the rights quickly become worthless after the show is over.
Conclusion
The evolution from traditional John Doe orders to agile, Dynamic and Superlative Injunctions represents an important milestone in India’s intellectual property journey. With the introduction of such real-time solutions, the judiciary has demonstrated that it can operate just as quickly as cybercriminals. As a result, Section 37 of Copyright Act of 1957 continues to be an effective instrument for fighting against piracy today.
Nevertheless, this fight is far from over. While real-time enforcement is an effective way to secure revenue from live sporting events as well as the content produced by various OTT companies, it also creates a huge burden for the courts. The legal system must find the golden mean between timely protection and effective digital surveillance. This is essential in order to accomplish the task of protecting the Internet users’ access to the Web as well as their right to utilize the content for the sake of personal use instead of committing a crime
FAQs
Q1. The term “Whack-A-Mole” doctrine refers to the problems associated with copyright enforcement on the Internet. After being successful in shutting down one pirate site, copyright holders see the appearance of several copies of that site in its place or changes of its address to stay operational.
Q2. A classic John Doe Order has static characteristics. Such an order can be valid only concerning the sites specified in the lawsuit. A dynamic injunction gives the plaintiff the right to block similar sites discovered afterwards without launching a new legal procedure.
Q3. What is unique about the concept of “Superlative” injunction? The goal of Superlative injunctions is to block sites illegally streaming live sports programs in the course of their streaming. Rights holders are allowed to contact Internet Service Providers to get pirate sites removed within a few minutes from the moment of the live streaming.
