You sue a piracy site. You win. You send the order to every internet service provider in India, the domain goes dark — and the same site reappears within 48 hours at a new address, same library, same operators, new suffix. Your injunction now blocks an empty shell.
For years this whack-a-mole was the whole story of online enforcement in India. Rights holders won orders; infringers changed domains faster than courts could sit. In 2019, the Delhi High Court rewrote the rules with the dynamic injunction — and in 2023 it went a step further.
This guide explains how dynamic and dynamic-plus injunctions evolved, the ‘rogue website’ test brand and content owners must satisfy, how ISP blocking actually happens, and what an evidence file for this remedy looks like.
The mirror-site problem
A traditional injunction names specific websites. Blocking a domain costs the infringer nothing: registering a fresh one takes minutes and a few hundred rupees, while the rights holder must return to court for every new address — fresh application, fresh affidavit, fresh hearing.
The economics ran entirely the infringer’s way. Piracy operations treated blocked domains as routine churn, keeping mirrors and redirects ready before the ink dried on each order. Litigation moved in months; mirrors moved in hours.
A static injunction against a mirror site is a padlock on a door the infringer already left through.
UTV Software: India’s first dynamic injunction
In UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337x.to (2019), film studios sued a set of notorious torrent and streaming sites. The Delhi High Court did two important things.
First, it built a framework for identifying ‘rogue websites’ — sites whose primary purpose is infringement — and held that such sites can be blocked in their entirety, not merely at specific infringing URLs.
Second, it made the order dynamic. Instead of filing a new suit each time a blocked site resurfaced under a fresh domain, the plaintiffs were permitted to approach the court’s Joint Registrar with evidence that a new domain was a mirror of an already-blocked site, and have the injunction extended to it. Months of litigation collapsed into a documentation exercise.
The logic is honest about reality: the defendant is the operation, not the domain name. When the same operation surfaces at a new address, the existing finding of infringement follows it there.
The rogue-website test: what you must show
Whole-site blocking is a serious remedy, so courts reserve it for sites that are rogue in substance, weighing factors of the kind the UTV Software framework set out:
- Primary purpose. The site exists mainly to share or facilitate infringing content, rather than hosting occasional infringements among legitimate material.
- Hidden operators. Masked WHOIS records, privacy-shielded registrations, no traceable contact details — anonymity as a business model.
- Silence in the face of notice. Takedown requests and legal notices ignored or answered with new mirrors.
- Scale and flagrancy. Volume of infringing content, traffic drawn by it, directories and indexes organised around infringement.
- Evasion history. A trail of earlier blocks and reincarnations under new domains.
Assessment is on the totality — no single factor decides. The practical takeaway for rights holders: your evidence must paint the operation, not just one infringing page.
Courts block rogue operations, not stray URLs. Your evidence has to prove the business model, not one bad page.
Dynamic-plus: protecting works that don’t exist yet
A dynamic injunction still assumed a fixed list of protected works. Piracy sites, however, upload new releases within hours — content that did not exist when the suit was filed sat outside the order.
In Universal City Studios v. DotMovies.baby (2023), the Delhi High Court closed that gap with what it called a ‘dynamic+’ injunction: protection extending to the plaintiffs’ future works as they come into existence, against the rogue sites and their mirrors. New film, new mirror, same order.
Together, the two devices track both moving parts of online piracy — the infringer’s address and the victim’s catalogue. For studios, music labels, sports broadcasters, and publishers, a well-drafted dynamic-plus order is now the standard ask, anchored to a clean copyright ownership record.
Counterfeit or pirate sites reappearing faster than you can block them? IPForte’s enforcement team scopes dynamic-injunction strategies for brands and content owners — first consult free.
Discuss site blocking →How blocking actually happens
The court order is addressed to intermediaries, because the site operators are usually anonymous and abroad. Execution runs through three channels.
- Internet service providers. ISPs named in the suit are directed to block subscriber access to the listed domains, typically at DNS level.
- Government departments. Courts direct the Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and IT to issue notifications requiring licensed ISPs across India to disable access — this is what gives one decree nationwide effect.
- Domain registrars. Where reachable, registrars can be ordered to lock or suspend infringing domains, cutting the site off at the root rather than at Indian ISPs alone.
When mirrors surface, the rights holder files an affidavit with evidence before the Joint Registrar, and the blocking obligation extends to the new domains without a fresh suit. The cycle that once took months now takes days.
Not just piracy: what this means for brands
The remedy grew up in copyright, but Delhi High Court practice has carried the same logic into trademark territory: rogue e-commerce sites selling counterfeits, lookalike domains harvesting customer payments, fake ‘official’ service portals and app-download pages that impersonate real businesses.
For a brand, the ingredients mirror the piracy cases: a subsisting trademark registration, proof the sites are fraudulent operations rather than grey-market sellers, and evidence they respawn under new domains when challenged. Where the abuse lives in the domain name itself, a domain dispute proceeding can run alongside the blocking strategy.
Detection is the other half. Mirrors only get blocked if someone finds them, so serious programmes pair the order with continuous brand monitoring that feeds new domains to counsel monthly.
The injunction is a standing weapon. Monitoring is the trigger finger.
What brand owners must prepare
- Clean title. Registrations current and covering the goods actually counterfeited; ownership chains documented for content.
- An operation-level evidence pack. WHOIS records, dated screenshots, traffic data, notice trails, test purchases — proof of rogueness, not just of one infringement.
- A named-ISP strategy. Your plaint should implead the major ISPs and seek DoT/MeitY directions, or the order stops at paper.
- A mirror-response process. Monitoring, capture, affidavit, Joint Registrar — rehearsed before the first mirror appears.
- Litigation counsel who has run one. This is procedural machinery as much as law; an experienced IP litigation team keeps the machine moving.
Infringers industrialised evasion. Dynamic injunctions industrialised the response.
If your brand or catalogue is bleeding through mirror sites, the remedy now matches the threat. Build the operation-level evidence, ask for dynamic relief with ISP and government directions, and keep the monitoring loop running — the order is only as strong as the next affidavit you file.
Your brand is only yours when you file it.
10,000+ Indian brands filed with IPForte. 48-hour turnaround. 130+ countries via Madrid Protocol. First call is free, no commitment.