Dynamic and Dynamic+ Injunctions in Indian IP Cases Explained

Explainer · IP Litigation

Updated for 2026 · Claw Editorial

A film is released on Friday. By Friday night, pirated copies sit on dozens of websites. You get an injunction against ten of them. On Saturday, the same sites reappear under new web addresses. Going back to court for every new address is slow, and the damage is done in days. Indian courts, led by the Delhi High Court, built two tools to fix this: the dynamic injunction and the dynamic+ injunction. This explainer says what each one is, shows the order in which the cases arrived, and flags where the law is still being argued. Last verified October 2026.

01The problem: sites that come back with a new name

Online piracy does not behave like ordinary infringement. A pirate site that is blocked can launch a copy within hours. These copies are called mirror, redirect or alphanumeric websites. The content is the same. Only the domain name changes.

A normal injunction names the defendants in the suit. It covers the domains that were before the court on that day. Any new domain is, strictly, outside the order. The rights holder must file a fresh application, add the new domain, and wait for a hearing. In live sports and new film releases, the value of the content is gone by then.

Courts also have to protect the other side. Blocking a website affects internet users and, sometimes, legal content. So any faster remedy needs checks. That tension explains the shape of both injunctions.

02What a dynamic injunction is

A dynamic injunction is an order that reaches beyond the websites named in the suit. It also covers mirror, redirect and alphanumeric versions of those same rogue websites that appear later. The plaintiff does not need a new suit for each one.

The key points are these.

• It extends an existing order. There is already a finding that the named site is flagrantly infringing. The new address is the same site under another name.
• The plaintiff files an application, not a new suit. The plaintiff shows that the new address is a mirror of an already blocked site. The court, or a Registrar where the order allows, then extends the block.
• Internet service providers and the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) carry out the block. The order is directed to them. Domain name registrars are directed to suspend the domains.
• It protects works that already exist. The plaintiff lists the works at issue when it files.

A dynamic injunction follows the same rogue website to its new address. It does not cover new works. That comes next.

03What dynamic+ adds: future works

The dynamic+ injunction is a further step. It is called an injunction that protects works "as soon as they are created". It covers the plaintiff’s new releases too, not only titles listed at the start of the suit.

This matters because a studio or broadcaster releases new content every week. Under a plain dynamic order, each new title would need a fresh application listing it. Under a dynamic+ order, the plaintiff can notify the court and the rogue sites are restrained for the new title, without starting again.

So the two ideas fit together like this.

04The lineage of the first dynamic and dynamic+ orders

This is the part most writers skip. Here is the order of the key cases, with the citations we could confirm against the Delhi High Court judgment text on Indian Kanoon.

Step 1: blocking whole rogue websites (2019)

UTV Software Communication Ltd v 1337x.to, (2019) 78 PTC 375 (Del), decided by the Delhi High Court. This is widely reported as the first dynamic injunction in India. The court held that where a website is flagrantly infringing, the injunction can be extended to mirror and redirect sites of that website, so the plaintiff is not forced to start again each time. It also set out how the court should decide whether a website is a rogue website.

Step 2: many orders applying the idea (2020 to 2022)

After 2019 the Delhi High Court granted dynamic injunctions in many suits by studios and broadcasters. The 2023 Universal order refers to earlier suits including Universal City Studios LLC v Vegamovies.run, CS(COMM) 265/2022, and a series of Star India suits against sites such as Live Flixhub.net, Moviemad.biz and Extramovies.host. These show how fast infringing sites multiply. The courts used the dynamic model to cope.

Step 3: dynamic+ is born (9 August 2023)

Universal City Studios LLC v Dotmovies.baby, CS(COMM) 514/2023 with I.A. 14120/2023 and I.A. 14122/2023, decided on 9 August 2023 by Justice Prathiba M. Singh of the Delhi High Court. The plaintiffs were Universal, Warner Bros, Columbia Pictures, Netflix Studios, Paramount and Disney Enterprises. The order was an ex parte ad interim injunction. The court explained the dynamic+ injunction at paragraph 20 of the judgment. It said the aim is to protect copyrighted works as soon as they are created, because uploads to rogue sites happen so quickly that irreparable harm would otherwise occur. The court itself cited UTV Software at paragraph 11 of the same order.

You can read the order directly on Indian Kanoon. A useful commentary is the SpicyIP analysis of dynamic+ injunctions.

Step 4: use in live sports and later suits

Since 2023 the model has been used in live broadcast and sports cases, where the "future work" is the next match.

05How the process works in practice

The details are set order by order, so always read the operative part of the order you are relying on. The usual pattern in the Delhi High Court is as follows.

1. The plaintiff files a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court, which sits as its IP Division, and applies for an interim injunction against named rogue websites.
2. The court finds a prima facie case, balance of convenience and risk of irreparable harm, and grants the order. Other courts of the country can in principle follow the same approach.
3. ISPs, DoT and domain name registrars are directed to block or suspend the domains.
4. When a new mirror site appears, the plaintiff files an application with proof, usually an affidavit and a screenshot showing the site is a copy of a blocked one.
5. In dynamic+ orders, the plaintiff can also add new titles by filing a disclosure of the new work.

Practical tip for rights holders: keep your list of works and your mirror evidence clean and dated. Courts ask for proof that the new site is truly the same rogue operation.

06Safeguards and criticism

Dynamic injunctions are not without objection. Commentators raise three points.

• Over-blocking. A wrong domain could be blocked by mistake, including a site with legal content.
• Due process. The affected site owner may not get notice before the block. Courts have therefore allowed affected parties to apply to have a block removed.
• Future works. Critics ask how a court can restrain infringement of a work that does not yet exist and has not been shown to the court. The dynamic+ answer is that the plaintiff must disclose the new work and the defendants can object.

The Delhi High Court has itself built safeguards into these orders, such as a duty on the plaintiff to disclose and an option for the defendants to be heard. Check the particular order for the exact terms.

07Beyond copyright: trademarks, brands and John Doe orders

Dynamic and dynamic+ orders came out of copyright piracy. The Delhi High Court has also used similar reasoning in some trademark and counterfeit cases, often mixed with John Doe (Ashok Kumar) orders against unknown defendants. We do not list those orders here, because each depends on its own facts and we have not confirmed them against primary sources. Use the tracker linked above to follow them.

Another point: a dynamic injunction does not decide the final case. It is an interim or interim-plus remedy. The suit still goes on to trial or to a decree.

If you work on the registry side, for example patent searching before you file, that is a different job. See our guide to the best AI patent search tools in India. For the court-side question of what the Delhi IPD does with Section 3(d) in patent disputes, see Section 3(d) in Indian courts.

08Where Claw fits

Claw is an all-in-one legaltech platform for Indian advocates, law firms, and corporate legal teams, combining AI-based case search, an AI legal assistant (Legal GPT), case management, and compliance automation across all Indian courts and tribunals.

Dynamic and dynamic+ orders live in the court record, and their terms are set order by order, so the operative part of each one is what matters. Claw lets you follow that lineage. It tracks cases, orders and hearings across 9,102 courts, benches and forums, searches 30 crore+ judgments in under 5 seconds, and covers Supreme Court judgments from 1950 and High Court judgments from 1990. So you can pull the Delhi High Court orders that built this remedy, or track a live piracy suit by party or advocate name.

Claw does not use customer documents to train AI models. Create a FREE Claw account to research these injunctions and track a live matter by party or advocate name. To search the wider body of law, see case search across Indian courts.

09Sources and further reading

Primary and commentary sources used for this page. Last verified October 2026.

• Universal City Studios LLC v Dotmovies.baby, Delhi High Court, 9 August 2023: Indian Kanoon
• SpicyIP commentary: Analysing dynamic+ injunctions
• Delhi High Court: delhihighcourt.nic.in
• Claw: clawlaw.in

This page is general information, not legal advice. Always read the operative part of the actual order before relying on it.

10Frequently asked questions