Siddharth Saxena
In digital space, files can be shared in no time. If a website is blocked or taken down by injunction through the court’s order, within minutes a mirror website appears that hosts the same data hosted on the parent website. These are also known as rogue websites. The copyright infringement thereupon continues through the rogue website although the parent website has been taken down by injunction. Copyright Act, 1957, provides for remedies in case of infringement for the plaintiff which apply to electronic and digital medium in the same manner as they apply to conventional medium. Dynamic injunction refers to the remedy wherein the plaintiff prays for the injunction restraining the parent website to be extended to different domain names or websites that host the information that caused copyright infringement in the first place. Dynamic injunction was first granted in India in 2017 by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in UTV Communications v 1337x.to where the Court laid down the criteria for identifying rogue websites for the purpose of extending the main injunction. However, Bombay HC has taken a different view and advocated the appointment of ombudsman for such grievances. Since the infringing media can be hosted on intermediary, therefore, the balancing of interest between online speech and the statutory obligation of preventing copyright infringement has to be made. Dynamic Injunctions have been granted in the European Union recently. However, Dynamic Injunctions in the EU differ vastly from their counterparts in India. This article aims to find out the efficacy as well as implications of Dynamic Injunctions in combating copyright infringement in Digital space. Moreover, this article shall seek to set forth the contrasting features of a dynamicinjunction granted in India in comparison with dynamic injunctions in the European Union (Hereinafter referred to as ‘EU’). The author shall also analyse the discourse around intermediary liability and copyright infringement.