With the highly anticipated Indian Premier League (IPL) 2025 on the horizon, broadcasters are gearing up not just for peak viewership but also for a surge in digital piracy. In today’s tech-driven world, online pirates don’t wait, they stream content illegally in real time, often outpacing traditional legal responses. This cat-and-mouse game between rightsholders and infringers is especially high-stakes when it comes to live sports. Amidst this backdrop, Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors[1]. has emerged as a pivotal case. Star India, the official broadcaster of the IPL, found itself fighting an uphill battle to protect its exclusive content from rogue websites and mobile apps illegally streaming matches, sometimes within seconds of going live.
The Core Dispute in Simple Terms
At the heart of the case lies Star India’s exclusive right to broadcast sporting content like the IPL. The problem? A growing number of rogue websites and mobile applications, including those associated with IPTV Smarter Pro were streaming this content illegally, bypassing licensing and broadcast rights. These platforms were offering free, unauthorized access to live matches, effectively hijacking Star’s intellectual property for mass public consumption.
To counter this, Star initially secured an ex parte ad interim injunction from the Delhi High Court in February 2025. This order directed internet service providers and domain registrars to block identified infringing sites. But the challenge didn’t stop there. As soon as one platform was blocked, mirror and redirect sites or new rogue apps would appear, sometimes within minutes. The traditional model of naming and blocking each one through court orders wasn’t fast enough, especially during high-stakes, time-sensitive broadcasts like live cricket matches.
What’s New Here? The “Superlative Injunction”
What makes this case stand out is the Delhi High Court’s introduction of what it calls a “superlative injunction”: an evolved form of the well-known dynamic injunction. Traditionally, in dynamic injunctions, courts permit copyright holders to block access to infringing websites even if those sites appear after the lawsuit begins. But this time, the Court went a step further.
Recognizing the fast-paced, ever-morphing nature of digital piracy, especially during live events like IPL, the Court allowed real-time blocking of not just rogue websites, but also mobile applications and their associated domains or interfaces. This real-time protection is crucial, it means Star India no longer has to rush to court every time a new app or site appears mid-match.
The inclusion of mobile apps is especially significant. While websites have been the focus of past injunctions, this is one of the rare orders that acknowledges how piracy has gone mobile. By clubbing rogue apps under the same enforcement umbrella as websites, the Court sent a clear message: mode of infringement doesn’t matter—unauthorized use will be blocked.
Why This Matters Beyond IPL
While the spotlight may be on IPL 2025, the implications of this judgment go far beyond cricket. The Delhi High Court’s approach reflects a larger judicial trend: adapting IP enforcement to meet the speed and scale of digital piracy. In earlier cases, like Star India v. Jiolive.TV, the Court had already emphasized the need for blocking rogue websites in real time. But the current order marks a progression by expanding this protection to rogue mobile applications as well.
This shift is crucial not just for sports broadcasters but also for film studios, OTT platforms, and music companies, all of whom deal with leaks and unauthorized streaming. A new movie or web series can be pirated and circulated within hours of release. Orders like this one create a powerful precedent, enabling copyright holders to proactively protect their content across multiple platforms, without getting bogged down in procedural delays.
A Slightly Different Take – Tech Platforms Need to Be Proactive
While the Delhi High Court deserves credit for its swift and adaptive response, this case also highlights a deeper issue: why must courts micromanage digital enforcement? Domain registrars, ISPs, and app stores often have the technical capacity to detect and restrict infringing platforms faster than any legal mechanism can. So why aren’t they doing more?
Instead of relying solely on judicial orders, the next step in copyright protection may lie in “co-regulation”- a system where law and technology work together. Platforms could implement automated piracy-detection tools, flagging and restricting access to suspicious domains or apps even before a lawsuit is filed.
This would not only reduce the burden on courts but also make piracy a far less viable option. After all, copyright enforcement in the digital age shouldn’t only be reactive; it should be intelligent, collaborative, and anticipatory. It’s time for tech intermediaries to stop being passive observers and start acting as responsible gatekeepers.
The Future of Copyright Enforcement
The Star India v. IPTV Smarter Pro case signals a decisive shift from reactive to proactive intellectual property enforcement. As piracy becomes more agile and tech-driven, enforcement tools must evolve too, through real-time judicial orders, yes, but also through AI-powered detection systems, automated takedowns, and stronger accountability from digital intermediaries.
The judiciary is stepping up, but should it always have to? Perhaps it’s time for tech platforms to share the responsibility. In the battle against piracy, the real question is: Are courts doing enough, or are they doing too much because others aren’t?
Explainer Box
What is a “Superlative Injunction”?
A superlative injunction (coined by the Delhi High Court in 2025) is an evolved form of a dynamic injunction. It allows copyright owners to:
- Block newly discovered rogue websites or mobile apps in real-time.
- Include mirror sites, redirects, and app interfaces that pop up rapidly.
- Act without returning to court repeatedly for every new infringement.
This bridges the gap between fast-moving piracy and traditionally slow legal remedies.
[1] Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors., CS(COMM) 108/2025.
Authored by: Aeshita Marwah
Blogger, The IP Press
Leave a Reply