Delhi: The Delhi High Court recently issued a dynamic injunction order in favor of Viacom 18, prohibiting several unauthorized websites from streaming Indian Premier League (IPL) matches.
Justice Sanjeev Narula emphasised the importance of swift action due to the short duration of IPL matches, highlighting potential financial losses for Viacom 18. The court underscored the necessity of protecting the plaintiff's investment in broadcasting rights and upholding copyright protections.
The court ordered the blocking of the identified rogue websites and any others found to be illegally streaming the matches.
Domain name registrars to freeze and suspend the rogue websites while disclosing their complete information was mandated by the court. Various internet service providers also received orders to block these websites.
“During the currency of the IPL Events, if any further websites are discovered which are illegally streaming and communicating content over which the Plaintiff has rights, the Plaintiff is given liberty to communicate the details of such websites to the DoT and MeitY for issuance of blocking orders, and simultaneously to the ISPs for blocking the said websites, so as to ensure that these websites can be blocked on a real time basis there is no considerable delay. Upon receiving the said intimation from the Plaintiffs, the ISPs shall take steps to immediately block the rogue websites in question. Likewise, the DoT and MeitY shall also issue blocking orders immediately upon the Plaintiffs communicating the details of the websites which are illegally streaming the IPL Events,” the Bench ordered.
This order comes on the heels of Viacom 18 and Jio Cinema (which holds exclusive digital media rights for the Indian subcontinent and overseas television rights for IPL from 2023 to 2027) argued before the High Court that numerous rogue websites were illegally streaming IPL matches.
Advocates Sidharth Chopra, Yatinder Garg, Suhasini Raina, Sanidhya Maheshwari, and Priyansh Kohli represented Viacom 18, while no representation was made for the defendants.