Delhi High Court: In an application filed by JioStar under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking a permanent injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 4 (‘rogue websites’) from unauthorised streaming of India’s cricket matches, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that such unauthorised streaming would pose a significant threat to JioStar’s revenue streams and would undermine the considerable investment made by JioStar in acquiring the exclusive rights to stream such matches.
Thus, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of JioStar and restrained the rogue websites from streaming, broadcasting or making the matches publicly available in any manner. The Court further directed the Domain Name Registrars (‘DNRs’) and the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block the rogue websites.
Background
The instant suit pertains to the streaming of the ‘South Africa Tour of India 2025’ and the ‘New Zealand Tour of India 2026’ (‘events’), organized by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (‘BCCI’). The plaintiff, JioStar owns the media rights on respect of various sporting events including international cricket matches organized by the BCCI and the International Cricket Council. JioStar had entered into a Media Rights Agreement with the BCCI for exclusive global digital media rights and television rights to various BCCI events, including the instant events, for a period of five years from 2023 to 2028.
The rogue websites are online locations and mobile applications whose purpose is to communicate, make available for viewing and providing access to JioStar’s content free of cost (or at minimal subscription) and without any authorization. JioStar submitted that these rogue apps are completely illegal mobile applications and have no permission or authorisation to reproduce, store, transmit, communicate, make available for viewing or provide access to any of their content. It was also contended that the download, distribution and use of these Android based rogue apps, occurs through an Android Package Kit and that the primary intent of these apps is to exploit various copyright-protected works and to provide alternatives to legitimate sources to the user.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that the events in question would be broadcasted through various JioStar channels including the OTT platform JioHotstar which is accessible across a variety of digital devices including computers, smartphones, tablets, and other electronic gadgets. The apprehension of unauthorised dissemination, telecasting, or broadcasting of the events on rogue applications shall pose a significant threat to JioStar’s revenue streams, undermining the value of the considerable investment made by JioStar in acquiring the exclusive rights.
The Court further observed that the broadcast content, including footage, commentary, and other composite elements, is fully safeguarded under the Copyright Act, 1957, and the unauthorised use of these elements shall also infringe upon the copyright protections accorded to the broadcast content.
The Court further opined that the issue of rogue apps engaging in the piracy of copyrighted content presents a recurring threat and disseminating or communicating any portions of the events, without proper authorization or licensing from JioStar, would violate the JioStar’s exclusive rights.
Thus, the Court held that JioStar had made out a prima facie case for grant of an ad interim ex parte injunction. The balance of convenience was also in JioStar’s favor and if the injunction was not granted it would cause irreparable injury to JioStar’s exclusive rights.
Therefore, the Court restrained the rogue websites, their agents, any associated websites or any entity working through them from hosting, streaming or making available to the public in any manner, the upcoming cricket events over which JioStar exercises exclusive media rights.
Defendants 5 to 7, i.e. the DNRs were directed to block and suspend the domain names associated with the rogue websites.
Defendants 8 to 16, i.e., the ISPs were also directed to block the URLs and websites associated with the rogue websites.
JioStar was also given liberty to approach Defendants 5 to 18 in case other websites streaming the events are uncovered before or during the currency of the events and the Defendants 8 to 16 were directed to take immediate steps for blocking the websites in question without undue delay.
The matter was further listed for 3-3-26.
[JioStar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Cricfy TV, C.S. (COMM) No. 1203 of 2025, decided on 11-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiff: Siddharth Chopra, Yatinder Garg, Priyansh Kohli, Ishi Singh, Shudhata Sudhir, Manish Singh, Advocates