Tucows Cannot Earn in India Yet Ignore Court Orders, Says Delhi High Court in Premier League URL Blocking Suit
Introduction
The Delhi High Court, in proceedings instituted by The Football Association Premier League Limited, directed the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to take action within two weeks against Tucows Domains Inc., a Canadian domain name registrar, for failure to block infringing URLs carrying pirated Premier League content despite repeated judicial directions. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, by order dated 10 April 2026, held that Tucows’ conduct demonstrated clear defiance of judicial orders and scant regard for the Court’s authority, especially in light of similar past non-compliance in earlier piracy matters. The Court further directed the Central Government Standing Counsel to file a status report within two weeks detailing the action taken.
Factual Background
The suit was filed by The Football Association Premier League Limited against SportsHub.Stream, Tucows Domains Inc., and several other defendants, alleging unauthorized hosting and dissemination of URLs carrying copyrighted Premier League audiovisual content. By an earlier order dated 14 May 2025, the Court had directed various domain name registrars (DNRs), including Tucows, to block URLs hosting infringing material. Despite the lapse of several months, Tucows failed to implement the directions.
A significant document relied upon by the Court was Tucows’ email dated 30 September 2025, in which it stated that it would not comply unless the Indian court order was first domesticated in Canada, Germany, Denmark, or the United States. This stand was treated as direct resistance to the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court also took judicial notice of Tucows’ prior conduct in Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. MHDTV.WORLD, where similar non-compliance was eventually cured only after coercive measures were undertaken by the Court.
Procedural Background
The present proceedings arose in the pending copyright infringement and dynamic injunction suit filed by the Premier League seeking blocking of rogue streaming platforms and related enabling infrastructure. Upon continued non-compliance by Tucows with the earlier URL-blocking directions, the plaintiff sought further coercive relief. The High Court was therefore called upon to determine the consequences of continued disobedience by an overseas domain name registrar offering services in India while refusing to honor Indian judicial orders.
Issues
1. Whether Tucows Domains Inc.’s refusal to block infringing URLs despite prior court directions amounted to actionable non-compliance?
2. Whether an overseas domain registrar offering services in India can refuse to submit to the jurisdiction of Indian courts while continuing commercial operations in India?
3. Whether DoT and MeitY should be directed to examine continuation of Tucows’ services in India in light of repeated non-compliance?
4. Whether obligations under the IT Intermediary Rules, 2021 and ICANN arrangements require mandatory compliance with Indian judicial directions?
Contentions of Parties
The plaintiff, Premier League, contended that despite clear judicial directions issued in May 2025, Tucows had failed to suspend or block the infringing URLs, thereby enabling continued piracy of copyrighted sports content and undermining the efficacy of the Court’s dynamic injunction mechanism. Tucows relied on its earlier communication asserting that it would not act unless the Indian court’s order was recognized or domesticated in foreign jurisdictions where it was incorporated or carried operations.
The Union of India, represented through the CGSC, was called upon to assist the Court regarding regulatory and enforcement measures that could be taken against a DNR continuing to offer services in India while remaining in breach of judicial orders.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Court adopted a firm approach on territorial jurisdiction and enforceability against intermediaries offering services in India. Justice Gedela held that an entity which offers domain registration and related services in India, derives financial gains from Indian users, and facilitates access to infringing content affecting Indian copyright holders, cannot selectively refuse the jurisdiction of Indian courts.
A central plank of the reasoning was that Tucows’ refusal was not a good-faith jurisdictional objection but a continuing pattern of defiance, particularly because in prior litigation it had complied only after coercive judicial action. The Court described such conduct as “unpalatable and unacceptable”, amounting to clear disregard for previous and present judicial mandates.
The Court also reiterated that domain name registrars functioning as intermediaries in India are bound by the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and must comply with lawful judicial blocking directions.
Additionally, the Court referred to the obligations arising from ICANN accreditation arrangements, observing that DNRs are contractually required to comply with applicable laws and judicial directives of relevant jurisdictions.
The Bench therefore concluded that Tucows had no legal choice but to implement the Court’s blocking directions, and that its continued resistance warranted regulatory examination by DoT and MeitY, including whether it should be permitted to continue offering services in India.
Decision
The Delhi High Court directed the Department of Telecommunications and MeitY to proceed against Tucows Domains Inc. within two weeks for failure to comply with judicial directions to block infringing URLs in the Premier League piracy suit. The authorities were further directed to examine whether Tucows should be permitted to continue offering its services in India while remaining in breach of court orders. The Central Government Standing Counsel was directed to file a status report within two weeks setting out the action taken.
In this case the plaintiff was represented by Advocates Suhasini Raina and Pushpit Ghosh.