Evolving Space For Dynamic Injunction In The Realm Of Growing Infringement In Digital Era

INTRODUCTION

The internet is the most dynamic tool of the 21st century, with a myriad of applications that have drastically increased the flow of information across the globe. It has become the epicenter of human existence and a catalyst for development to an unprecedented extent. While its convenient and borderless nature has enhanced global connectivity, it has simultaneously given rise to modern-day quandaries.

The modus operandi of the internet is highly complex, and this complexity has paved the way for evolving mechanisms of intellectual property (“IP”) infringement in increasingly novel and sophisticated forms. Though it may not appear alarming at first glance, in the context of contemporary IP law, it has stirred a hornets’ nest and remains one of the most contentious legal challenges of our time.

Traditionally, tackling IP infringement required little more than an injunction and a takedown order against the infringing content, usually limited to blocking a single URL. However, this approach has now become inadequate in the face of the proliferation of mirror domains, alphanumeric clones, mobile applications, and streaming servers. In response, the scope of injunctive relief has evolved significantly. Courts across the globe have begun to acknowledge the growing need for what is now termed “dynamic injunctions,” designed to effectively combat the rapidly multiplying and adaptive mechanisms of infringement in the digital era.

WHAT BOON IS “DYNAMIC INJUNCTION” FOR IP PROTECTION

 In view of limited protection being provided by the Static injunctions which failed to keep pace with infringers who shift domains overnight allowing the easily evaded as piracy sites re-emerge under mirror domains, alphanumeric variants, or new IP addresses, Dynamic Injunction has arisen as an boon for IP protection. Dynamic injunction can be construed as a new format of injunctions for tackling instance where same infringing content can surface the internet on new URLs or domain names which cannot be blocked by the injunction order as they are not included in the order circumventive measures adopted on the internet. In essence, a dynamic injunction is an injunction which acts as an order for blocking or taking down the infringing or objectionable

content rather than just a domain name or URL, without imposing the obligation of monitoring or filtering content on the Internet Intermediaries. A dynamic injunction is a court order that restrains infringement not only at the specific locations identified on the day of judgment but also at functionally equivalent locations that later arise to evade the order, such as mirror/redirect domains, alphanumeric variations, new IP addresses, or successor URLs.¹

A dynamic injunction is thus a modern format of injunctive relief tailored to address recurring online infringement, where the same infringing content resurfaces on new digital identifiers that evade earlier orders. Importantly, this mechanism does not impose a duty of proactive monitoring or filtering on Internet intermediaries but equips courts and rightsholders with a responsive enforcement tool against adaptive piracy practices.²

In India, the Delhi High Court first recognized and granted such relief in UTV Software Communication Ltd judgement³ wherein the court while exercising the its inherent power under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to implead the mirror websites and extend the injunctive relief. In the said case the plaintiffs leading film production companies sued 30 piracy websites along with John Doe defendants, ISPs, and government agencies for unauthorized hosting and communication of their copyrighted works. The Court, after analyzing the nature of “Rogue Websites,” held that online infringers cannot be treated differently from offline infringers and that blocking entire websites (rather than individual URLs) was justified under the proportionality principle. Recognizing the “hydra-headed” problem of mirror, redirect, and alphanumeric clones, the Court for the first time in India granted a “dynamic injunction” empowering plaintiff to implead such derivative websites through a simplified procedure, enabling the Joint Registrar to direct ISPs to block them without requiring fresh suits. Along with a permanent injunction, the Court directed ISPs, DoT, and MeitY to block access to the infringing sites, and awarded litigation costs to the plaintiffs, marking a significant step in Indian jurisprudence toward combating online piracy⁴

Drawing from Singapore’s jurisprudence, this judgment became a stepping stone in Indian IP law, aligning India with jurisdictions like the UK, EU, Australia, and Singapore that employ dynamic (and more recently “Dynamic+”) injunctions to counter fast-moving digital piracy. By allowing rightsholders to extend injunctions against fresh infringing URLs or domains without filing new suits, dynamic injunctions strike an effective balance between IP enforcement and the realities of the digital ecosystem.

DID OTHER COURT’S IN INDIA FOLLOW THE BATON PASSED BY DELHI HIGH COURT?

While the Delhi High Court has been the flag-bearer in granting Dynamic relief in instance of mirror infringements other High Court has been bit more cautious in exercising such extensive relief. In the Eros International Media Ltd. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited⁵ laid down that The Court emphasized that blocking entire websites should be an extreme measure, permissible only if it is established through a three-step verification process that the entire site contains only infringing or illicit content with no legitimate material whatsoever. In this case, the plaintiffs furnished a verified list of 134 infringing URLs, supported by evidence and cross-verification, which the Court found sufficient to justify targeted blocking of specific URLs rather than whole websites. Hon’ble Bench, here emphasis on the need to safeguard innocent third parties, ruling that blocking orders must be granular, proportionate, and time-limited, with error-page notices providing remedies for those inadvertently affected. The judgment thus laid down a careful balance between copyright enforcement and the protection of legitimate online activity, becoming a precursor to later developments on “rogue websites” and dynamic injunctions.

Similar approach Balaji Motion Pictures v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam⁶ stringent approach in granting such injunctions and blocking websites, going so far as to state that the trend of broad 'John Doe' orders as dangerous, while directing that only specifically identified URLs would be blocked. However, the Hon’ble Bombay High has shown leniency in its approach in its recent judgment while extending the Dynamic Injunction while admitting the with evolving space for the same in present times. In the case of Applause Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. Meta Platforms Inc,⁷ recognized the likelihood of infringers adopting “rogue handles” and shifting identities on platforms such as Instagram, and therefore granted ex parte ad interim reliefs amounting to a dynamic injunction.

The Court directed Meta to take down infringing posts and rogue accounts, disable infringing URLs, and disclose identifying details of infringers, while also restraining defendants from reposting or continuing with infringing activities. This marked an important step where the Bombay High Court moved away from its earlier cautious stance and acknowledged the necessity of broader, adaptive injunctions to effectively tackle digital piracy and infringement in real time.

The Delhi Hight Court at the same time has been affirm in its stand with more extensive relief been allowed in the recent case of Jiostar India (P) Ltd. v. https//criclk.com,⁸ wherein the Hon’’ble Court expressly noting that “upcoming technology and the technological advances… are not only reachable far and wide, but are also unpredictable”, leaving rightsholders especially vulnerable to the actions of rogue websites. The Court recognized that such “hydra-headed” sites, even if blocked, resurface instantly through mirror or alphanumeric variations, employing redirection and masking techniques that make enforcement nearly impossible. Finding a prima facie case of flagrant and systematic infringement, the Court restrained the defendants from unauthorized streaming, directed domain registrars and ISPs to block and suspend specified rogue websites, compelled disclosure of registrant details, and most notably granted a “Dynamic+ injunction”. This empowered the plaintiff to notify ISPs and registrars of newly discovered infringing mirrors or redirects during the live sporting event, requiring real-time blocking on affidavit without returning to court each time, while keeping the Court informed. In doing so, the Court both acknowledged the “dangerous edge of technology” and adapted injunctive relief to keep pace with the fast-evolving landscape of digital piracy.

CONCLUSION

The evolution of injunctions from static URL-based blocking to dynamic and now Dynamic+ injunctions reflects the judiciary’s responsiveness to the realities of the digital ecosystem. Indian courts, particularly the Delhi High Court, have emerged as frontrunners in shaping remedies that keep pace with the “hydra-headed” phenomenon of rogue websites and adaptive piracy. While early decisions like Eros International and Balaji Motion Pictures reflected a cautious, rights-balancing approach insisting on proportionality, verification, and protection of legitimate online activity subsequent jurisprudence in UTV Software, Applause Entertainment, and Jiostar India has steadily expanded the scope of injunctive relief to provide rightsholders with timely, technologically relevant tools.

What emerges is a trajectory where courts have moved from defensive caution to proactive adaptability, recognizing that delayed enforcement is enforcement denied in the digital era. Dynamic injunctions thus stand as a necessary judicial innovation, grounded in proportionality but agile enough to address real-time infringement through simplified procedures and delegated enforcement mechanisms. By aligning with global best practices, Indian jurisprudence has ensured that IP protection remains effective without imposing undue burdens on intermediaries or stifling legitimate online freedoms.

Ultimately, the expanding space for dynamic injunctions illustrates a broader legal shift: the courts’ acknowledgment that technological change cannot be restrained, but legal remedies can and must be recalibrated to ensure that intellectual property rights are not rendered illusory in the borderless, fast-paced digital world.

Footnotes

^{1 Manmeet Kaur Sareen & Kanika Kalra, Dynamic Injunctions – Internet “Injunctions 2.0”, ILI Law Review, Vol. II, Winter Issue 2019, at   [insert starting page number of the article] (on file with Indian Law Institute).}

^{2 Md. Tasnimul Hassan, Curbing Copyright Infringement with Dynamic Injunction: The Case for Trans-Judicial Influence in India, 5 NLUD J. Legal Stud.                                          (2022), https://ssrn.com/abstract=4564448}

^{3 UTV Software Communication Ltd. & Ors. v. 1337x.to & Ors, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8002}

^{4 Id}

^{5 Eros International Media Ltd. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 10316}

^{6 Balaji Motion Pictures Ltd. v. BSNL, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 4636}

^{7 Applause Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. Meta Platforms Inc., 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1034}

^{8 Jiostar India (P) Ltd. v. https//criclk.com, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4608}

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.