Tips Films Limited Vs HTTPS//0GOMOVIES.COM.TR/ & Ors.:11.07.2025:CS(COMM) 690/2025: High Court of Delhi:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
In the case of Tips Films Limited vs HTTPS//0GOMOVIES.COM.TR/ & Ors., CS(COMM) 690/2025, decided on 11.07.2025 by the High Court of Delhi, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal considered a copyright infringement suit concerning online piracy of cinematograph films. The plaintiff, Tips Films Limited, a major player in the Indian film production and distribution industry, approached the Court seeking urgent relief against 56 rogue websites allegedly involved in pirating and streaming its upcoming and existing films without authorization.
The factual background of the case reveals that Tips Films Limited is the producer of two feature films titled “Maalik” (scheduled for release on 11.07.2025) and “Sarbala Ji” (scheduled for release on 18.07.2025). The plaintiff claimed copyright ownership over these films and feared that the defendants—specifically defendants no. 1 to 56—would stream these films illegally on their websites. These websites were identified as rogue piracy platforms frequently engaged in unauthorized streaming of third-party content, including films. The plaintiff also impleaded domain name registrars (defendants no. 57 to 80), various internet service providers (defendants no. 81 to 89), the Department of Telecommunications (defendant no. 90), and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (defendant no. 91), to ensure comprehensive enforcement of the blocking orders.
The procedural background shows that the plaintiff filed applications seeking exemption from pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, permission to file additional documents, and exemption from prior notice under Section 80 CPC for government defendants, all of which were granted by the Court. The suit was filed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and accompanied by an interim injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, seeking immediate relief to prevent the streaming and downloading of the plaintiff's films through unauthorized websites.
The core dispute in this case concerns copyright infringement and digital piracy, specifically the unauthorized streaming, hosting, and making available of the plaintiff's cinematograph films by rogue websites. The plaintiff contended that defendants no. 1 to 56 were hiding behind domain privacy services to operate anonymously, making it difficult to trace and hold them accountable. The plaintiff invoked Sections 51(a)(i), 51(a)(ii), and 51(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957, to argue that the defendants’ activities constituted clear cases of infringement. The plaintiff also relied on the precedent set in UTV Software Communication Ltd. & Anr. v. 1337x.to & Ors., CS(COMM) 724/2017, where the Delhi High Court had passed similar dynamic injunctions against rogue websites engaged in piracy.
In its discussion, the Court noted the prevalence of online piracy through anonymous and unregulated websites that infringe copyright by streaming films illegally. The Court recognized that rogue websites often obscure their ownership information using domain privacy services, making judicial enforcement more complex. To address this challenge, the Court endorsed a proactive approach, similar to the one adopted in the UTV Software case, to safeguard copyright holders’ rights.
In its decision, the Court held that a prima facie case of copyright infringement was made out in favor of the plaintiff. The balance of convenience was found to be in favor of the plaintiff, as irreparable harm would occur if the films were streamed illegally. Accordingly, the Court passed an interim injunction restraining defendants no. 1 to 56 from hosting, streaming, or communicating the plaintiff's films without authorization. The domain name registrars (defendants no. 57 to 80) were directed to lock and suspend the domain names of the infringing websites and disclose the registrants' details, including payment and contact information. The internet service providers (defendants no. 81 to 89) were directed to block access to the rogue websites. The Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology were directed to issue blocking orders to all ISPs against the identified websites and to extend such orders to any further websites discovered by the plaintiff engaging in similar activities during the pendency of the suit.
The Court also granted liberty to the plaintiff to approach the authorities for immediate blocking of any additional infringing websites and to file affidavits informing the Court of such actions. If any non-infringing website is inadvertently blocked, it would have the right to approach the Court for relief. The case was listed for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar on 15.09.2025 for completion of pleadings and before the Court on 17.11.2025.
