Two recent rulings from the High Court of Delhi, involving Reliance Industries Limited and Tata Sons, have extended the scope of superlative injunctions to set a precedent for tackling online impersonation, counterfeiting, and trademark misuse.
In Reliance Industries v Pawan Kumar Gupta & Ors. (July 10 2025), the court restrained unauthorised use of the ‘Reliance’ and ‘JIO’ trademarks by unknown entities selling fast-moving consumer goods on platforms such as Amazon, Flipkart, and IndiaMart. These listings were often uploaded using false identities, making enforcement difficult.
Recognising the risk to consumer safety and brand integrity, the court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction not only against the named defendants but also against any future infringers identified during the proceedings. Importantly, it authorised Reliance to directly notify online platforms to remove current and future infringing listings – without the need for fresh judicial approval.
A similar approach was adopted in Tata Sons & Anr. v John Doe & Ors. (July 10 2025), where the court confronted a fraudulent scheme involving fake Tata dealership websites and impersonation of company officials. These scams frequently resurfaced under new domain names.
In response, the court passed a sweeping injunction order not only against unknown (John Doe) defendants but also any individuals acting in concert with them. Also, Tata Sons was empowered to directly notify domain name registrars (DNRs) to lock or suspend any future domain name containing the ‘Tata’ mark in combination with trigger terms such as “consumer”, “dealer”, “franchise”, or “distributorship”.
Both rulings embody a recent and evolving form of injunctive relief designed to provide real-time, platform-agnostic enforcement in the face of increasingly sophisticated digital infringement.
The road to superlative injunctions: from dynamic to dynamic+
The legal foundation for these decisions lies in a broader judicial shift that began in 2019, when the High Court of Delhi first introduced dynamic injunctions in UTV Software Communication v 1337x.to. These injunctions allowed plaintiffs to block mirror, redirect, or alphanumeric variants of already injuncted rogue websites by submitting affidavits with supporting evidence to the joint registrar. Once satisfied, the joint registrar could direct internet service providers (ISPs) to disable access – reducing repetitive litigation against every iteration of an infringing site.
This approach was further refined in 2023 in Universal City Studios v Dotmovies.baby, where the court introduced the concept of a dynamic+ injunction. For the first time, protection was extended to future copyrightable works – acknowledging the continuous output of creators in sectors such as entertainment and sports. Plaintiffs could file impleadment applications with affidavits to bring new content and infringing websites under the umbrella of the original injunction. A significant feature was the ability to notify DNRs directly to suspend domains, bypassing the need for judicial orders in each instance and speeding up enforcement.
This mechanism was applied in DAZN & Anr. v Buffsports.me & Ors., wherein, on May 28 2025, the High Court of Delhi intervened to protect DAZN, a global sports streaming platform and the exclusive broadcaster of football’s Club World Cup 2025, from unauthorised streaming by six rogue websites.
Investigations revealed that these websites were illicitly circumventing DAZN’s exclusive streaming mechanisms to rebroadcast content in India. Given the real-time nature of the infringement, the court granted a dynamic+ injunction and authorised DAZN to notify DNRs and ISPs as and when new infringing domains were discovered – enabling quick takedowns during a live global event.
Superlative injunctions
Just a day after the DAZN order, in Star India v IPTV Smarters Pro & Ors., the court formally introduced the concept of a superlative injunction. Recognising that infringement was not limited to websites, the court expanded the scope to cover rogue mobile applications. Crucially, it did away with the requirement for plaintiffs to file fresh affidavits or impleadment applications. Instead, Star India was allowed to directly notify DNRs and ISPs, which were obligated to act without further court directions.
Tool for the future?
The evolution from traditional to superlative injunctions has allowed courts to keep pace with the constantly shifting tactics of online infringers. These orders conserve judicial resources, reduce procedural delays, and offer right holders a cost-effective enforcement model.
However, the broad nature of such injunctions has also sparked debate over proportionality and due process. New websites or platforms impleaded via plaintiff notifications may not undergo rigorous judicial scrutiny – raising the risk of overblocking. In some cases, entire websites or apps may be disabled even if they host only a small amount of infringing content.
There are also concerns around the compliance burden placed on intermediaries. DNRs and ISPs are expected to take enforcement action based solely on a plaintiff’s notice under a single court order, with limited clarity on procedural safeguards or liability risks.
Despite several challenges, the evolving injunction framework is viewed by most as a model for balancing enforcement efficiency with digital complexity. Originally developed for copyright enforcement, these tools are now proving effective in trademark and anti-fraud contexts, as seen in the Reliance and Tata cases.
Looking ahead, dynamic and superlative injunctions may find broader application in combating misinformation, deepfakes, and online impersonation – areas where fast, adaptive relief is vital. The key will be in striking a careful balance – ensuring that they remain effective, real-time, and cost-efficient tools without undermining the principles of fairness, proportionality, and due process.
