Most infringement a brand or content owner now meets is online, and most of it is dealt with without a court. Platforms have procedures, the law gives them deadlines, and a well-run takedown programme clears the ordinary volume. The court is for what the procedures cannot reach: sellers who relist, sites that mirror, operators who hide. This guide covers both layers.
Quick reference
| Problem | First step | If that fails |
|---|---|---|
| Pirated content on a platform | Written notice under the copyright takedown rules; access disabled for twenty-one days | Court order within the twenty-one days; dynamic injunction for repeat sites |
| Counterfeits on a marketplace | The marketplace’s brand-protection programme and grievance officer | Suit against the seller and, where it is more than a passive host, the platform |
| Lookalike website or app | Notice to the host, registrar and app store; domain complaint | Suit with blocking, domain-transfer and delisting orders |
| Rogue streaming or download site | Court — dynamic or dynamic-plus injunction | — |
| Court or government order | Intermediary must act within thirty-six hours | Loss of safe harbour |
The intermediary framework
Platforms, marketplaces, hosts and internet service providers are intermediaries, and the Information Technology Act shields them from liability for what users post — provided they do not initiate or modify the content, observe due diligence, and act on actual knowledge. The Supreme Court held that actual knowledge means a court order or a government notification, and the intermediary rules require an intermediary to remove content within thirty-six hours of receiving one. For copyright, the Delhi High Court has held that a specific notice from the owner identifying the infringing content is enough to fix the platform with knowledge, and that a platform which fails to act on it loses the shield.
Intermediaries must also publish their rules, appoint a grievance officer who acknowledges complaints within twenty-four hours and resolves them within fifteen days, and — for the larger platforms — a resident compliance officer. Those requirements are the levers a rights owner uses.
Copyright: the twenty-one-day takedown
The Copyright Act and Rules give owners a specific procedure. A written notice to the person storing the content — the platform — identifying the work, the owner’s rights and the infringing copy, obliges the platform to disable access for twenty-one days. Within that period the owner must obtain a court order; if none arrives, the platform may restore the content. The procedure is fast and needs no lawyer to trigger, but it is a holding measure: for anything that matters, the suit must follow inside the three weeks.
Trademarks and counterfeits: marketplaces
There is no equivalent statutory notice for trademarks. What exists is the marketplaces’ own brand-protection programmes — registration of the mark with the platform, reporting tools, and takedown of listings that infringe — backed by the grievance-officer obligation. They work for individual listings. They do not stop a seller relisting under a new name, and the platform’s obligation to police proactively is limited.
The courts have drawn a line between a passive intermediary, which hosts listings and is protected, and one that actively participates — identifying sellers as authorised, guaranteeing authenticity, handling logistics and payment, promoting the listings — which can be liable as a seller. The Delhi High Court applied that distinction to hold a luxury marketplace liable for counterfeits it had promoted, and marketplaces have adjusted their conduct and their programmes since. Where a platform is more than a host, the suit can name it.
Court orders: what they can reach
A suit — usually with an ex parte interim application — can produce, in one order:
- an injunction against the seller or operator, named or as a John Doe
- directions to marketplaces to delist and disclose the seller’s details, accounts and sales
- directions to domain registrars to lock, suspend or transfer domains, and to the .IN Registry
- directions to app stores to remove apps
- directions to hosting providers to take down sites
- directions to internet service providers, through the government’s blocking mechanism, to block access to sites
- directions to payment providers and banks to freeze accounts
- directions to social media platforms to remove accounts and posts
Indian courts have made such orders against foreign platforms with Indian operations, and compliance is the norm.
Rogue websites and dynamic injunctions
For sites whose primary purpose is infringement — pirated films and series, live sport, music — the Delhi High Court developed the dynamic injunction. On proof that the sites are rogue, judged by factors such as the volume of infringing content, the concealment of the operators’ identity and the disregard of notices, the court blocks the named sites and lets the plaintiff add mirrors, redirects and new domains as they appear, by an application verified by the court’s registrar rather than a fresh suit. The dynamic-plus injunction extends the protection to the plaintiff’s future works, so that a new release is covered from day one. Broadcasters and studios obtain these orders routinely, including in advance of major sporting events, and they now cover trademark cases against networks of lookalike sites and betting and gaming platforms as well.
Social media, influencers and impersonation
Fake brand accounts, impersonating profiles and influencer posts using a mark or a work without licence are dealt with through the platforms’ reporting procedures first — most have specific impersonation and intellectual property channels — and by court order where the platform does not act or the account reappears. Where the impersonation involves fraud, the cyber-crime police are a parallel route.
Running a programme
Online enforcement is a process, not a case. The elements: monitoring — automated searches of marketplaces, app stores, social media and domain registrations for the brand; prioritisation — sellers and sites by volume and harm; notices — through each platform’s procedure, with the registration certificates on file with the platform in advance; escalation — to the grievance officer, then to court, for the repeaters; evidence — dated screenshots, test purchases and archived copies of everything, taken before the takedown removes it; and records, because a court asked for a dynamic injunction or damages wants to see the history.
Frequently asked questions
How do I get infringing content taken down from a website in India? For copyright, a written notice to the platform identifying the work and the infringing copy obliges it to disable access for twenty-one days, within which a court order must be obtained. For other content, the platform’s own reporting procedure and grievance officer, then a court order, which the platform must comply with within thirty-six hours.
Are online marketplaces liable for counterfeits sold on them in India? A marketplace that merely hosts listings is protected as an intermediary if it acts on notice. One that actively participates — vouching for sellers, guaranteeing authenticity, handling fulfilment and promotion — can be liable as a seller. Courts have applied that distinction.
What is a dynamic injunction? A court order blocking rogue websites that lets the rights owner add mirror and redirect sites as they appear, on verification, without filing a new suit. A dynamic-plus injunction also covers the owner’s future works from release.
Can an Indian court order a foreign website to be blocked? Yes. Courts direct Indian internet service providers, through the government’s blocking mechanism, to block access to infringing sites wherever hosted, and direct registrars, hosts and platforms with Indian operations to act.
How quickly must a platform act on a court order? Within thirty-six hours of receiving a court order or government notification, under the intermediary rules. Grievance complaints must be acknowledged within twenty-four hours and resolved within fifteen days.
Do I need a court order to take down counterfeit listings? Not for individual listings, which marketplaces remove through their brand-protection programmes. A court order is needed for sellers who relist, for disclosure of their details and accounts, and for platforms that do not act.
Useful official resources
- Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology — IT Rules — the intermediary guidelines
- Copyright Office, India — the Copyright Rules, including the takedown procedure
- National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal — fraud and impersonation
See our related notes on interim injunctions, including dynamic orders, copyright infringement and remedies, cybersquatting remedies and anti-counterfeiting actions.
Counterfeits or pirated content online that the platform is not clearing? Talk to us.