- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- with readers working within the Advertising & Public Relations, Pharmaceuticals & BioTech and Retail & Leisure industries
- within Intellectual Property, Privacy, Government and Public Sector topic(s)
Imagine if someone infringes upon the Intellectual Property of the owner of the work and starts manufacturing and selling similar goods or pirated versions of the work. What will happen in such cases? In today's contemporary and AI- driven era, pirated movies often appear before actual theatrical release, and counterfeit goods flood e-commerce websites and live broadcasts are illegally being streamed by anonymous users behind technological concealment. Counterfeit goods of well-known brands are easily available in the market and sold at lower prices, causing deceptive similarity to the original goods. Traditional legal remedies, which are designed to hold identifiable defendants accountable, often fail in such situations. In such an enforcement vacuum, John Doe (or Ashok Kumar) injunctions have emerged as a powerful court instrument in India. It permits the courts to award a preventive injunction and restraint against unknown defendants who are reasonably expected to violate the intellectual property rights of the actual owner of the work, goods or any cinematograph film.
Protecting an author's creative work has become complex in today's digital age. People can easily copy, download, or distribute someone else's work without their permission, leading to several copyright and IP-related legal problems. Courts developed a unique kind of judicial remedy known as the John Doe Order to address such problems. In India, it is also known as an Ashok Kumar Order or a Rolling Anton Piller Order. It refers to an order issued against anonymous individuals who are likely to violate or infringe upon someone's rights.
BACKGROUND AND EVOLUTION
The important ruling in Anton Piller KG v. Manufacturing Processes Ltd. (1976)1 is the current origin of the John Doe Order, which has its roots in England. In this instance, the plaintiff believed that its confidential information had been misused and feared that if the defendant were given advance notice, the evidence would be hidden or destroyed. The court issued an ex parte Anton Piller order, allowing the plaintiff to visit the defendant's property to examine and preserve evidence, after realising this risk. The English Appellate Court established crucial requirements for such an order, including the presence of a solid prima facie case, the possibility of the petitioner suffering grave injury, and unambiguous proof that the defendant had incriminating evidence.2
LEGAL BASIS OF JOHN DOE ORDERS
The Courts in India derive authority from Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), along with inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC and Part III of the Specific Relief Act. These provisions pertain to the Court's authority to issue a temporary injunction yet having the same legal status as a permanent injunction. There are certain requirements to be fulfilled to obtain a John Doe injunction:
First and foremost, the plaintiff must convince the court that their rights have been violated, including instances of prior breach as well as occasional violations by both known and unknown parties.
Second, before any precautionary remedy is granted, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case.
Thirdly, the plaintiff must satisfy that in the case of the absence of the requested John Doe order, the defendant's actions will significantly lead to some financial or irreparable damage to the plaintiff3.
The justification for John Doe's orders stems from the legal maxim 'ubi jus ibi remedium,' which literally means where there is a right, there is a remedy. Even before its advent in India, countries like Canada, America, Australia and the UK had already welcomed this judicial action4.
THE ENTRANCE OF JOHN DOE ORDERS IN INDIA
The first John Doe order was passed in 2002 in the case of Taj Television Ltd v. Rajan Mandal5. The case revolved around unlicensed cable operators transmitting the channel (Ten Sports) without making any agreements with the plaintiff's marketing partners. Approximately 1377 cable operators obtained a permit, but several well-known cable operators failed to do so and continued to broadcast without authorisation. The registered broadcasting rights of the channel for the 2002 Soccer World Cup belonged to the plaintiff, causing loss as a result of the illegal broadcasting, and their relationship with the other licensees was also damaged. In light of the foregoing circumstances, the Court used its inherent authority under Section 151 of the CPC and, in accordance with the globally accepted John Doe principles in the other forei gn jurisdictions, issued a John Doe order and designated a Court Commissioner to search the premises of additional unidentified cable operators and obtain evidence by taking pictures and video footage.
In another case of ESPN Software India Pvt. Ltd. v Tudu Enterprise & Ors.6 The plaintiff obtained the exclusive right to telecast the ICC Cricket World Cup,2011 and claimed to be the sole and exclusive distributor of three pay channels, namely ESPN, Star Sports and Star Cricket channels in India. Certain cable operators, including the Defendants, were pirating the plaintiff's signal and retransmitting the match without authorisation, thereby infringing upon the copyright and the broadcasting rights of the plaintiff. The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, franchisees, sub‑operators, and any person claiming under them from distributing, telecasting, broadcasting, rebroadcasting, or communicating to the public the ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 matches telecast on Star Cricket, ESPN and Star Sports channels without authorisation.
SCOPE OF JOHN DOE ORDERS IN INDIA
The digital and media industry has utilised John Doe orders to restrain digital piracy in various cases. However, the scope of these orders is not just limited to the piracy of goods online, but also encompasses a wide ambit, covering copyright and trademark infringement, as well as violations of personality rights.
Property is the extension of one's personality or persona, and protecting one's personality means protecting one's intellectual property rights. The Bombay High Court in the case of Sunil Shetty v. John Doe S Ashok Kumar7 (2025) granted an ex parte ad interim injunction order granting the renowned Bollywood actor Sunil Shetty protection against the AI-generated deepfake videos, voice imitation and unauthorised advertisements and false endorsement leading to exploitation of his personality rights. The court found prima facie infringement, causing reputational harm, public deception and dilution of his reputation and personality. Thus, granted a relief of an interim injunction.
In the case of Luxottica Group Limited v. Ashok Kumar& Ors8The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim John Doe order against the unknown counterfeiters selling fake Ray Ban eyewear. The plaintiff company, Luxottica Group Ltd, is the owner of the globally renowned 'RAY BAN' trademark for sunglasses and optical frames, and discovered widespread counterfeit goods in Delhi markets. The defendants were manufacturers, distributors and retailers stocking and selling deceptively similar fake products infringing the trademark and trade dress of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed suit against defendant no. 1-4, whose identities were known, and Defendant no. 5-12w were the persons whose identities were unknown9. The court issued John Doe orders against the unknown persons restraining them from manufacturing, selling, stocking or dealing in counterfeit eyewear products. The Court also appointed Local Commissioners for search, seizure, inventory and video documentation of infringing goods.
DYNAMIC INJUNCTION
The internet has transformed the traditional copyright regime. Copyright is a demonstration of an individual's creation, whereas piracy is a dilution of that creation. Online piracy is not just a legal challenge but has economic and service problems as well. Digital piracy has become a widespread concern, posing significant challenges to creators, copyright holders, and the broader entertainment industry. Digital piracy refers to unauthorised copying, distribution, or sharing of copyrighted content like music, films, software, books, etc.
The definition of a 'Dynamic Injunction' has been promulgated by Justice Pratibha Singh to read as "an injunction order which is not static but dynamic. This implies that though the first injunction order may apply only to one website, if mirror websites are created, the injunction would dynamically apply to the said mirror websites as well."10 Unlike the traditional injunctions, which are static, these injunctions are dynamic in nature, adapting to the evolving digital platform. They empower the right holder to block access to the infringing websites and platforms, regardless of their domain names and IP address changes. In India, the first dynamic injunction was granted in the case of UTV Software Communication Ltd. and Ors. Vs. 1337X.To and Ors11, The Delhi High Court issued a dynamic injunction against several torrent websites, including the defendant, to prevent the illegal distribution of copyrighted Bollywood movies. The court also defined the term Rogue Websites and gave certain non-exhaustive factors to determine them, like the primary purpose of the website being copyright infringement, non-traceable details of the website registrant, blocking of access to the website by other jurisdictions, any previous court orders blocking access to the website and overall traffic on the websites.
DYNAMIC (+) INJUNCTION
Indian courts have expanded the reach and effectiveness of legal protection against online infringement by introducing the idea of dynamic-plus injunctions, building on the foundation of dynamic injunctions. It is a step beyond dynamic injunction, which extends the protection to future works that have not yet been produced or distributed, in addition to existing infringing websites. To address the persistent nature of copyright infringement issues, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court issued a ruling in the case of Universal City Studios LLC v. Dotmovies. Baby and Or.12in which the defendant's website functions as a rogue or piracy website, whose main objective was unlawful distribution of copyrighted films. The Court ordered ISPs and intermediaries to prevent access to such infringing platforms and imposed a dynamic injunction that restrained not only the specified websites but also their mirror, redirect, and alphanumeric variations.
In the case of DAZN Limited v. Buffsports.Me & Ors (2025)13, the Delhi High Court issued a Dynamic+ injunction to safeguard the plaintiff's exclusive media rights for FIFA Club World Cup 2025. The court ordered the immediate blocking of the identified rogue websites and authorised real-time blocking of the new infringing domains upon notification by the plaintiff.
SUPERLATIVE INJUNCTION
This injunction supersedes the dynamic+ injunction, which permits plaintiffs to avail the grant of real-time relief against the infringing activities of a rogue defendant irrespective of the mode thereof. These rogue websites are fraudulent sites that mimic legitimate ones and infringe upon the IP of legitimate websites or digital streaming platforms. In the case of Star India Pvt Ltd v. IPTV Smarter Pro &Ors14., J. Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi High Court introduced a Superlative Injunction, an evolved form of dynamic injunction in which the court allowed blocking of not just rogue websites but also mobile applications and their associated domains or interfaces.15 The Court ruled that Defendant's programs and platforms enabled unauthorised streaming of copyrighted television channels and live sports content, and were liable for copyright infringement. The Court prohibited intermediaries from granting access and ordered the blocking of infringing websites, apps, and mirror versions.
RECENT JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
In the case of Neela Film Productions Private Limited v. TMKOC.com &Ors16, The Delhi High Court issued an ex parte ad-interim injunction order against certain websites and e-commerce platforms, YouTube channels and John Doe parties, restraining them from infringing the copyright and trademark of the plaintiff's comedy sitcom Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah. They were charged with misappropriating the plaintiff's rights to the show's content, and most importantly, the likeness and persona of the main characters, which are protected under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 195717, by using them for commercial gain on a variety of websites, other digital media and merchandise. Also, the plaintiff claimed that by disseminating AI-generated deepfake content on various online platforms, they were tarnishing the brand image, which was harmful to the show's overall reputation and goodwill accumulated over the years.
In the case of Rahul Mishra & Anr. v. John Doe & Anr.18, the plaintiff no. 1, a leading fashion designer known for creating luxurious and handcrafted apparel under the label 'RAHUL MISHRA', holding trademark under various classes, along with plaintiff no.2, which is his company, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against Defendant 1, a website selling replicas and counterfeit dresses made and sold by plaintiff at discounted rates and Defendant no.2, which is a Domain Name Registrar for copyright and trademark infringement. The Delhi High Court was satisfied that there exists a prima facie case and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction, which is a dynamic injunction, since the identity of the 1st Defendant was unknown. The Court restrained the Defendant from using, manufacturing, selling, or advertising any goods similar to those of the Plaintiff.
In the case of JioStar India Pvt. Ltd v. http//Criclk.com &Ors19, the plaintiff JioStar India Pvt. Ltd, formerly known as Star India Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit seeking injunctive and consequential relief against various defendants and rogue websites for infringement of its exclusive digital media rights regarding the India Tour of England,2025. Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim Dynamic+ Injunction in favour of the plaintiff due to the imminent threat posed by online piracy to the plaintiff's broadcasting rights, restraining the identified rogue websites and other equivalent infringing platforms from unlawfully streaming and communicating to the public the plaintiff's copyrighted content during the live match broadcast. The Court also ordered Internet service providers (ISPs) to prevent access to the identified rogue websites and directed the relevant Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) to block and suspend the infringing domain names and reveal the complete registration data of the domain holders20.
FUTURE OF JOHN DOE ORDERS
The John Doe orders in India are increasingly being used by powerful and influential people rather than ordinary citizens. Many such orders are now granted without properly proving infringement. Instead of being used only in serious and genuine cases, they are often sought just because certain content is inconvenient or critical of those in power. This has led to the blocking of websites, social media pages, and YouTube channels, even when the content may be part of legitimate criticism or public discussion.
This creates a legal gap. On one hand, everyone has a right to free speech and expression. On the other hand, people also have a right to protect their reputation. Courts are expected to balance both these rights carefully. As a result, there is sometimes a risk that courts may unintentionally silence lawful criticism and restrict free speech. Rather, the real challenge for the courts is to ensure that such orders are passed only when speech clearly crosses the line into something harmful to reputation, defamatory, or malicious, and not merely because it makes powerful people uncomfortable.21
CONCLUSION AND WAY FORWARD
John Doe Injunctions have emerged as an indispensable tool in India to address anonymous IP infringement. The Delhi High Court have demonstrated a strong commitment to protecting authors' rights in the digital ecosystem through the evolution from John Doe orders to dynamic, dynamic-plus, and now superlative injunctions. These remedies successfully prevent piracy and counterfeiting, but they also pose issues with due process and intermediary liability.
Therefore, to guarantee efficient enforcement without going too far, a balanced and regulated approach is necessary. There should be a uniform statutory framework or guidelines to regulate the scope and duration of such injunctions. Along with a robust technological development, such as advanced monitoring tools for detecting the identity of the infringing content more accurately. To address the underlying causes of digital piracy and counterfeiting, public awareness should be created, and deterrent measures like hefty penalties should be imposed.
By
Vijay Pal Dalmia, Advocate
Supreme Court of India & Delhi High Court
Email id: vpdalmia@vaishlaw.com
Mobile No.: +91 9810081079
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/vpdalmia/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/vpdalmia
X (Twitter): @vpdalmia
And
Anusha Kachroo
Hidayatulllah National Law University ( HNLU), Raipur
Footnotes
1 Anton Piller K.G v Manufacturing Processes Ltd. & Ors [1976] 1 All ER 779.
2 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2224153
4 https://www.scribd.com/document/535016356/lokesh-vyas-john-doe-order-copy
5 Taj Television v. Rajan Mandal [2003] FSR 22.
6 Espn Software India Private Ltd. v. Tudu Enterprise, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5710
7 Suniel V Shetty v. John Doe S Ashok Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3918
8 Luxottica Group Limited v. Ashok Kumar& Ors, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5709
9 https://yourstory.com/mystory/brand-protection-and-john-doe-orders-5p25enjl1z
10 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=57662522-8a2e-445d-8ae4-4637b1b146f9
11 MANU/DE/1244/2019
12 MANU/DE/5295/2023
13 MANU/DEOR/63145/2025
14 https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/star-india-v-iptv-smarters-pro-ors-10022025-586189.pdf
16 Neela Film Productions Private Limited v. Taarakmehtakaooltahchashmah.Com & Ors., CS(COMM) 690/2024 (Delhi High Court Aug. 14, 2024)
17 The Copyright Act, 1957 No. 14, Sec.13
18 https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2024-12-27/lfcluehj/Rahul_Mishra_John_Doe_order.pdf
19 Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. Formerly Known as Star India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Https//Criclk.Com and Ors. (29.05.2025 - DEOR): MANU/DEOR/70734/2025
© 2025, Vaish Associates Advocates,
All rights reserved
Advocates, 1st & 11th Floors, Mohan Dev Building 13, Tolstoy
Marg New Delhi-110001 (India).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist professional advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. The views expressed in this article are solely of the authors of this article.
