[This post is authored by Riddhi Yogesh Bhutada. Riddhi is a final-year law student at School of Law, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), with a focused interest in Intellectual Property Law and Media and Entertainment Law. She enjoys reading and writing on how intellectual property interacts with other disciplines. Her previous posts can be accessed here.]
The Delhi High Court, on 12th September 2025 granted a ‘dynamic + injunction’ to JioStar India Private Limited, for the Bollywood film Jolly LLB 3, one week before it’s release on 19th September 2025. Dynamic + injunction allows protection of current and future works of the right holders. We have witnessed dynamic+ injunction being granted in Universal City Studios LLC and Ors v. DotMovies.Baby and Ors, but that order followed a detailed analysis of the issue and against actual instances of infringement. In the instance of Jolly LLB 3, the Court has passed the injunction order against flagrantly infringing online locations (FIOL) without any proof of infringement but on a mere possibility of infringement assumed by JioStar. While this safeguards and gives producers a chance to shield their work before any unauthorized use, but looking ahead, the repercussions may include widespread requests for dynamic+ injunctions as a standard pre-release strategy by studios to pursue similar protections for upcoming films. This may create a culture of claiming pre-emptive rights before any actual infringement occurs, risking websites wrongly tagged as FIOL to be a part of an anti-piracy suit. Since the application of dynamic + injunction in this case is for a yet-to-be-released Bollywood film, it raises a critical question of whether a producer can seek pre-emptive relief without actual infringement.
Lack of Clarity on the Grounds for the Relief
The ex-parte order grants pre-emptive injunction seemingly based on JioStar’s argument that back in 2023 a similar pre release dynamic injunction was granted by the Court against FIOLs, restricting them from broadcasting its movie “Selfiee”. But in the Selfiee case, the Court’s order stemmed from the mode of operation of these FIOLs, enabling unauthorized broadcast over different domain names, clearly explaining why such an injunction is warranted. In the present case, no such explanation seems to have been given by the Court, to grant this pre-emptive relief.
Additionally, there is no robust method provided to the flagged websites to defend themselves. This raise alarms about overreach, due process violations, and the risk of collateral damage to legitimate online activities. This can lead to other repercussions, as blocking directives given to ISPs and domain registrars might affect non-infringing sites. As of today, no widespread piracy reports have surfaced, but the order’s proactive nature could set a precedent for more aggressive pre-release actions, potentially escalating tensions between producers and legitimate platforms. Justice Tejas Karia, in the order favored JioStar, as chances of leaking the film before the release increases risks resulting in pecuniary loss, irreparable violation of copyright and circulation of pirated versions of the film on social media and torrents. The Court relied on the fact that not granting an injunction would cause irreparable harm (parameters under the three-factor test for injunction are prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm). The Court while determining the test does not assess the grounds of prima facie case and bases its decision on prior infringement by FIOL as a ground to assume irreparable harm.
Copyright owners seeking dynamic injunctions have been a common practice (see here), especially with the growth of digital platforms and piracy. Dynamic injunction is essentially an exception designed to combat the instances of online piracy, allowing real-time blocking of infringing sites, including future mirrors or variants of websites (see here).
The Court in Universal City Studios LLC and Ors v. DotMovies.Baby and Ors (2023) granted dynamic + injunction for the first time allowing right holder to seek injunction in any future infringement. The order justified including future work under the injunction, as the plaintiff is the copyright holder of the future work so infringed. Section 14(a) provides commercial rights of the copyright holder to reproduce, adapt, and publicly communicate the work, allowing the producers to secure rights of their films against any infringer. This form of injunction automatically vests copyright upon creation of work enabling copyright owner to notify ISPs, domain registrars, and government authorities directly for swift blocking, thereby streamlining enforcement in a digital world where pirated content can proliferate globally within hours via evolving FIOL platforms. The Court in Jolly LLB 3 order relies upon mere ‘possibility of unauthorized dissemination’(paragraph 38 of the Order) to grant an ex-parte dynamic + injunction order. But the order does not arise from concrete evidence of imminent leaks. Essentially such dynamic+ injunction in pre-released movie dictates accountability on probabilistic future infringements, burdening defendants with a blanket ban for no infringement. While the order includes nominal safeguards, such as permitting mistakenly blocked non-infringing sites to seek modification via undertakings (paragraph 43 of the Order), this post-facto recourse holds every website that JioStar deems to be infringing (despite actually circulating any infringing content) accountable despite of any real-time infringement.
The order may set a precedent for Bollywood’s high-stake releases, where studios could routinely claim for dynamic+ injunctions against perceived probable piracy threats, creating a system for punishing the wrong doer before any wrong is committed. This raises concern as to how a website can be claimed as FIOL or infringing before any such instance or act is committed. This raises the question of- how does one identify and target specific websites without overreach? Is this similar to the quia timet injunction, where wrong is prevented even before they actually occur?
The Jolly LLB 3 ruling enables the producers to seek dynamic+ injunctions pre-release, potentially standardizing anti-piracy protocols for big-budget films. However, does this mean every producer can routinely approach courts for any future infringement? Likely yes, given the lack of clarity on the threshold to prove likelihood of infringement.