The main legal point established is that in cases of infringement, the court must consider the comparative importance of rights and the efficacy of measures ordered, and the duty of the Government to assist in enforcing court orders.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

R.P. No. 131 of 2016

1. The ex-parte ad-interim injunction order dated December 02, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge was challenged by the appellant on the plea that while restraining defendants No.1 to 73, the learned Single Judge erred in issuing directions to the Department of Telecommunications as also the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India, to ensure compliance with the injunction order issued against defendants No.1 to 73. An alternative submission made is that the sweep of the injunction order is too wide.

2. As per the suit instituted by the respondent in the appeal, it is a leading sports broadcaster in India and has exclusive licence of media rights in various sporting events. It has internet and mobile presence through its websites which are dedicated digital sports entertainment service sites. They offer to the viewers, sports content on-live, delayed-live, video on demand and pay per view basis. It is pleaded that defendants No.1 to 73 are rogue websites and the only activity they perform is that of infringing content rights. Through their websites defendants No.1 to 73 are engaged in the illegal business of hosting, streaming, broadcasting, retransmitting, communicating content to the public. The content offered by the said defendant websites is pirated and illegal. It is pleaded that these defendants are located across the world. Most of them hide behind domain privacy services, making it extremely difficult, and almost impossible to locate the owners of these websites. It is pleaded that the rogue sites use the technique of URL redirection/domain redirection to avoid detection and also to circumvent any order passed directing the blocking of the URL. Referring to past instances of infringement, injunction was claimed against defendants No.1 to 73 from indulging in the offending activity and further direction was sought to block these rogue websites. Against the internet service providers the order sought for is that they should block the websites of defendants No.1 to 73. The injunction prayed for has been granted with a direction to the appellant to ensure compliance with the injunction order.

3. To put it in simple language, defendants No.74 to 91 are internet service providers (ISPs). The respondent No.1 prayed for what is conventionally known as website blocking orders against the internet sites hosted by defendants No.1 to 73.

4. The ISPs and the appellant do not dispute that the rogue websites, impleaded as defendants No.1 to 73, are indulging in piracy.

5. Learned Additional Solicitor General Sh.Sanjay Jain did not dispute that the offending activities indulged in by defendants No.1 to 73 have to be curbed. The argument was that a takedown direction against ISPs had to be restricted to the URLs of the rogue websites, and in any case no direction could be issued to the appellant to ensure compliance with the ex-parte order granted by the learned Single Judge.

6. We had disposed of the appeal vide order dated March 10, 2016 by restricting the span of the impugned order, directing that the specified URLs identified by the aggrieved persons would be blocked and not the entire website.

7. The reason for restricting the sweep of the ex-parte ad-interim injunction obviously was that an order limiting the right of a person to carry on trade and business had to be justified and such restriction as was reasonable could be imposed by a Court. To wit : ‘A’ is carrying on three businesses, one of which is illegal. The restraint would obviously be qua the illegal business and not to restrain ‘A’ from carrying on any business.

8. Seeking review, it is urged by the respondent that the URLs of the defendants No.1 to 73 vary between 2 to 2026 and that the restrictive injunction granted would render the injunction granted infructuous because it is very easy to change a URL, but relatively difficult to change a domain name.

9. To understand the argument in