Delhi HC Rebukes ANI Media Over YouTube Copyright Stunts

In a stern reminder that even the most adversarial commercial litigation must be conducted with procedural fairness, the High Court of Delhi has dismissed an appeal filed by ANI Media Pvt Ltd. The division bench, comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, expressed "undisguised displeasure" at the appellant’s conduct in circumventing court orders to secure extra-judicial remedies.

From Courtroom to Digital Takedowns: The Case Background

The dispute originated from a copyright infringement suit filed by ANI Media against Dynamite News Network, alleging the unauthorized use of nine videos on the latter’s YouTube channel. On March 21, 2025, the learned Single Judge of the High Court established an agreement whereby Dynamite News undertook to remove the nine videos and refrain from future reproduction of ANI’s content. Consequently, the court ordered YouTube to unblock the respondent's channel.

However, the peace was short-lived. ANI Media independently contacted YouTube, flagging eight additional URLs for copyright infringement—videos that had been uploaded prior to the March 21 order. By utilizing YouTube's automated internal policy which triggers channel blocks after specific strike thresholds are met, ANI effectively bypassed the High Court to have the respondent's channel blocked again.

The Court’s Reasoning: Adversaries Need Not Be Unfair

The division bench found the appellant's actions deeply problematic. The court noted that ANI never challenged the initial order directing the channel's unblocking, yet proceeded to undo its effects through an "indirect route."

The bench emphasized that the appellant had essentially sought a permanent deletion of the respondent's channel as an interlocutory relief in its original suit—a request that was not granted by the Single Judge. "By doing so, the appellant successfully managed to have the respondent’s channel again blocked, without approaching this Court or obtaining its leave, thereby undoing the effect of the order dated 21 March 2025," the bench observed.

Key Observations

The High Court’s frustration with the litigation tactics employed was evident throughout the judgment:

• On the duty of fairness: "Commercial litigation may be adversarial, but even adversaries are required to act fairly."
• On bypassing the process: "Without challenging the said order, the manner in which the appellant managed to get the said order reversed... by directly approaching YouTube... deserves to be deprecated. We do so."
• On the Single Judge's wisdom: "If anything, therefore, the learned Single Judge has adopted an approach which balances the equities of both sides, and ensures that fairness is achieved."

Final Ruling and Implications

Dismissing the appeal in limine , the High Court upheld the Single Judge’s directive that required the respondent to remove the eight additional URLs in exchange for unblocking the channel.

The court rejected ANI’s request to limit this ruling, clarifying that it would not issue "pre-emptory" orders that might tie the hands of other courts in future, independent disputes involving third-party infringers. The judgment serves as a sharp cautionary tale for tech-savvy litigants: utilizing platform-specific policies to circumvent pending judicial directives will be viewed by the court as an act of bad faith, rather than a legitimate exercise of legal rights.