ANI Media v. Dynamite News: When Copyright Enforcement Crosses the Line

Introduction:

In an era where copyright strikes can cripple digital platforms overnight, the Delhi High Court’s ruling in ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Dynamite News Network Pvt. Ltd. reminds litigants that fairness still anchors intellectual property enforcement. The Delhi High Court dismissed ANI’s appeal, criticizing its “unfair” move to bypass judicial channels and directly pressure YouTube into re-blocking a rival’s channel. The message was clear: in commercial litigation, equity isn’t optional it’s integral.

Facts & Background:

The conflict began when ANI accused Dynamite News of uploading nine infringing news videos on its YouTube channel. On 21 March 2025, a Single Judge ordered the removal of those videos and allowed YouTube to unblock the channel. But instead of seeking further relief through the court, ANI approached YouTube directly, flagging eight additional URLs all uploaded before the original order and triggered another channel suspension.

This unilateral action prompted Dynamite News to return to court. The Single Judge took a balanced view: he ordered YouTube to unblock the channel, provided Dynamite removed the eight URLs, leading ANI to challenge this order in appeal.

Key Issues Before the Court:

1. Whether ANI acted improperly by directly asking YouTube to block Dynamite’s channel instead of approaching the Court?
2. Whether the Single Judge was right in ordering the channel’s unblocking while ensuring removal of the disputed eight URLs?
3. Whether ANI could claim to be aggrieved when the Single Judge’s order already protected its copyright interests and maintained fairness?

Court’s Reasoning, Findings, and Held:

The Division Bench didn’t mince words. Justice C. Hari Shankar remarked that while litigation can be adversarial, “even adversaries are required to act fairly.” The Court noted that ANI’s conduct contacting YouTube directly despite a pending suit undermined judicial authority and effectively reversed a prior court order without appeal.

The Bench found the Single Judge’s order not only justified but eminently fair: it safeguarded ANI’s copyright concerns while ensuring the respondent’s operational continuity. Moreover, since the disputed videos were uploaded before the March 21 order, no violation of the earlier injunction had occurred. The appeal, the Court held, was “completely unjustified” and dismissed in limine, reaffirming the lower court’s pragmatic balance between enforcement and equity.

Key Takeaways:

• Due Process Over Platform Pressure: The Court condemned ANI’s use of YouTube’s takedown policy as a shortcut to bypass judicial oversight.
• Fairness in IP Enforcement: The judgment reinforces that procedural propriety is integral to IP litigation, even amid fierce digital disputes.
• No Class-Wide Protection: The Court refused ANI’s request to extend the ruling’s effect to potential future infringers, keeping litigation fact-specific.
• Adversarial Integrity: The Court’s memorable line “Commercial litigation may be adversarial, but even adversaries must act fairly” sets a high bar for ethical conduct in copyright suits.

Conclusion:

The ANI Media decision is more than a procedural slap on the wrist it’s a cautionary tale for rights holders navigating the gray zone between assertion and overreach. In a digital ecosystem where a single copyright strike can silence a platform, the Delhi High Court highlighted a timeless truth: enforcing rights without fairness risks undermining the very system meant to protect them.