Superlative Injunction:Most Secretive Form Of Legal Protection
Priyanshu Bharadwaj
28 July 2025 12:30 PM IST
Injunctions are a familiar tool in the legal world. They're court orders used to prevent someone from doing something or, in some cases, to compel them to act. But what happens when even the existence of such an order needs to be kept secret? That's where superlative injunctions come into play a rarely used, high-level form of judicial protection that operates entirely in the shadows....
Injunctions are a familiar tool in the legal world. They're court orders used to prevent someone from doing something or, in some cases, to compel them to act. But what happens when even the existence of such an order needs to be kept secret? That's where superlative injunctions come into play a rarely used, high-level form of judicial protection that operates entirely in the shadows. Recently Delhi High Court issued first of its kind superlative injunction in favor of streaming channel giant Star India extending scope of traditional injunctions. It helps in real-time blocking of URLs and applications that are streaming cricket matches whose broadcasting and streaming rights are with Star India Private Limited A “superlative injunction” is a specific type of injunction, that grants a rightsholder the ability to take real-time action against infringing online activities, including websites and mobile applications, without needing to seek court approval for each instance. This type of injunction is an extension of the “dynamic injunction” concept, offering a more streamlined and expedited process for addressing online piracy. it can be said as enhanced form of dynamic + Injunction. It is an extended version of dynamic+ injunction, which is used not only to block rogue websites that unlawfully publish copyrighted content but also future production of the content.
What is a Dynamic Injunction?
Injunction can only be issued against a person from doing an act which can result in loss to the plaintiff. However, in dealing with digital piracy online, standard civil injunctions may be considered insufficient to provide relief. A major problem is that once a party obtains an injunction against specific websites, the erring websites can easily circumvent such injunctions by creating “mirror” websites which would have different URLs. And in case of live streaming damage is been already caused till the plaintiff gets an injunction order. Thus, dynamic injunctions have evolved as a remedy to combat such practices. Dynamic injunctions are not static in nature. An injunction would have to be granted against specific websites, but the said injunction will still extend and apply to mirror websites when brought to the notice of the concerned court, if created, so as to not defeat the purpose of the injunction. And party do not need to approach court every time these mirror websites infringe his intellectual property rights. Party can restrict be obtaining restraining order from registrar court itself.
The roots of dynamic injunctions were first seen at European Union in the “Court of Justice for the European Union” in “L 'Oreal v. eBay.” [1]The issue here was an infringement of L'Oréal's trademark on eBay. The court ordered the implementation of actions that not only stopped the existing infringement of rights by marketplace users but also prevented any future infringements of a similar nature.
It was further evolved by Singapore High Court in famous case Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. M1 Ltd”[2] The Singapore High Court explicitly granted a dynamic injunction. The plaintiffs were the owners of numerous cinematograph films. The injunction was issued under Section 193DDA of the Singapore Copyright Act. The defendants were directed to block FIOLs (Frequently Infringing Online Locations), including domain names, IP addresses, and URLs. By granting a dynamic injunction, the court aimed to stop specific evasive techniques employed by FIOLs, such as providing infringed material under different URLs. This dynamic injunction eliminated the need for the plaintiffs to repeatedly seek court amendments to the original injunction order.
This type of injunction exempted plaintiff from repeatedly seeking court for every infringement. He can enforce injunction order and get those 'mirror websites' blocked without approaching court every time a new mirror website infringing his right.
In India, trademark act does not have such provision as in Singapore Copyright Act, but Delhi High Court by exercising its Inherent power under section 151 of Code of civil Procedure issued first dynamic injunction in case of “UTV Software Communication Ltd. And Ors. v. 1337X to and Ors,[3] High Court held that “Though the dynamic injunction was issued by the Singapore High Court under the provisions of Section 193 DDA of the Singapore Copyright Act, and no similar procedure exists in India, yet in order to meet the ends of justice and to address the menace of piracy, this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 CPC permits the plaintiffs to implead the mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites under Order I Rule 10 CPC as these websites merely provide access to the same websites which are the subject of the main injunction.”
High Court of Delhi emphasise importance of Dynamic Injunction in fighting against rampant infringement of IP rights, held in case of Universal City Studios LLC v. DotMovies.Baby, that
“Court has deemed it appropriate to issue this 'Dynamic+ injunction' to protect copyrighted works as soon as they are created, to ensure that no irreparable loss is caused to the authors and owners of copyrighted works, as there is an imminent possibility of works being uploaded on rogue websites or their newer versions immediately upon the films/shows/series etc.”
Court also held in favour of plaintiff that “The Plaintiffs are permitted to implead any mirror/redirect/alphanumeric variations of the websites identified in the suit as Defendants Nos. 1 to 16 including those websites which are associated with the Defendants Nos. 1 to 16, either based on the name, branding, identity or even source of content, by filing an application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC in the event such websites merely provide new means of accessing the same primary infringing websites that have been injuncted.”
So, plaintiff not only can enforce injunction order against original defendant but also against any other variation of these websites to prevent any infringement from being happen.
The Concept of superlative Injunction and its need.
In a first-of-its-kind order, the Delhi High Court has granted a limited-duration superlative injunction— an enhanced form of dynamic+ injunction— to tackle the unauthorised streaming of IPL, India's England Tour by rogue apps and websites. High court defines it in case of Star India Pvt Ltd v. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors as “a superlative injunction, which, for ease of reference can easily be referred to as an extended version of the available dynamic+ injunction”. This was the first time an injunction is granted not against only rogue website but only against rogue mobile application and their associate domains. Star India Pvt. Ltd. had already secured an ex parte ad‑interim injunction on February 10, 2025, to block a set of rogue websites illegally streaming IPL 2025 and the England Tour of India. The injunction directed domain registries (DNRs) and ISPs to block access and allowed for new infringing domains to be added via the Joint Registrar of the court. However, after identifying 16 new websites and 3 rogue mobile apps, Star India argued that the standard procedure impleading each new infringer and seeking fresh relief would be too slow. By the time new domains or apps appeared, live events might already be pirated. Justice Saurabh Banerjee agreed that the plaintiff needed real-time blocking powers beyond just websites. Court emphasising the need of superlative injunction held that “In the new age of technology, today it has become increasingly easy and convenient for infringers to create alpha-numeric/ mirror/ redirect variants of infringing websites, and by the time impleadment and extension of relief(s) can take place, certain time-sensitive infringing activities like live streaming of sporting events have already commenced illegally and by the time the effected party like the plaintiff approaches this Court, it is too late. Even otherwise, the post blocking scenario is also a race against time since new alpha-numeric/ mirror/ redirect variants of infringing websites spawn in the spur of the moment in these rapid times. Under such circumstances, this Court has repeatedly held that real-time relief is warranted in order to not let the rights of plaintiff(s) like the plaintiff herein be rendered otiose in the virtual world “
So, by enhancing scope of dynamic injunction Delhi High Court issued superlative injunction, widening its scope not only limited to rogue websites but also to rogue mobile application held that “There is neither any impediment nor any harm caused to any of the effected parties if the same relief as granted in cases of rogue websites are also granted/ benefit(s) thereof are also extended to rogue mobile applications and their associated domains/ URLs/ UIs which are also predominantly and flagrantly violating the intellectual property rights of the plaintiff as well. At the end of the day, this Court is dealing with the intellectual property rights of the copyright owner, the plaintiff herein, and the mode of use/ dissemination activity is/ can hardly be of any concern.”
superlative injunction also opens up an additional route for the plaintiff(s) to avail the grant of real-time relief(s) against the infringing activities of 'rogue' defendant(s) irrespective of the mode(s) thereof. Explaining the reasoning behind superlative injunction, the court said, “By the time parties can implead (bringing new parties to the existing suit) and extend relief, time-sensitive infringing activities such as live streaming of sporting events already commence illegally,” the court said. It acknowledged that the post-blocking scenario has become a race against time as new mirror sites appear as variants of the original or other sites. With emerging technology infringer are finding new ways of pirating and to restrain them, judiciary need to evolve themselves too. Superlative inunction is the evolution that is needed to combat real time piracy in this technological world.
Views Are Personal.