Passing off and broadcast-right infringement arise when a cable operator substitutes its own advertisements into a protected broadcast.

Blanking out a broadcaster's advertisements and substituting a cable operator's own advertisements was treated as passing off because viewers could take the substituted material as part of the broadcaster's presentation, and a disclaimer did not remove the misrepresentation. The same conduct was actionable interference with contractual relations because the operator knowingly prevented performance of the broadcaster's advertising arrangements and diverted the benefit of those slots. The broadcast signals were also treated as movable property, so unauthorised switching-off during advertisements amounted to conversion. Interference with the composite broadcast further infringed copyright and broadcast reproduction rights, with the cable television regime reinforcing the prohibition on unauthorised alteration.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether blanking out the broadcasters' advertisements and substituting the cable operators' own advertisements amounted to passing off; (ii) whether the conduct constituted actionable interference by inducing breach of contract with the broadcasters' advertisers; (iii) whether the interference with the broadcast signals amounted to conversion of movable property; and (iv) whether substitution of advertisements in the composite broadcast infringed copyright and broadcast reproduction rights.

Issue (i): Whether blanking out the broadcasters' advertisements and substituting the cable operators' own advertisements amounted to passing off

Analysis: The substituted advertisements were inserted during the broadcast of the original programme and were likely to be taken as part of the broadcasters' presentation. The presence or absence of a small logo or a disclaimer did not dispel the misrepresentation. The conduct was capable of deceiving viewers and of damaging the broadcasters' goodwill and advertising business.

Conclusion: The conduct amounted to passing off and the finding was in favour of the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether the conduct constituted actionable interference by inducing breach of contract with the broadcasters' advertisers

Analysis: The appellants knew that the broadcasters had binding arrangements with advertisers and deliberately switched off the advertisements while the broadcast was being carried. That act directly prevented performance of the broadcasters' obligations and was intended to divert the benefit of the advertising slots to the appellants. The interference was direct, deliberate, and without justification.

Conclusion: The conduct amounted to actionable interference inducing breach of contract and the finding was in favour of the respondents.

Issue (iii): Whether the interference with the broadcast signals amounted to conversion of movable property

Analysis: The broadcast signals were treated as movable property capable of transmission, transfer, delivery, storage, and possession. By switching off the signal during advertisements and asserting a right to do so, the appellants dealt with the signals in a manner inconsistent with the rights of the true owner. Actual physical possession was unnecessary where there was an outright denial of the owner's right.

Conclusion: The conduct amounted to conversion and the finding was in favour of the respondents.

Issue (iv): Whether substitution of advertisements in the composite broadcast infringed copyright and broadcast reproduction rights

Analysis: The broadcast was a composite programme in which the entertainment and advertisement components formed an integrated whole. Interference with the advertisement component necessarily affected the protected broadcast and the copyright in the underlying programme. The broadcast reproduction right under the Copyright Act protected the broadcast from unauthorised rebroadcasting or alteration, and the appellants were not entitled to alter the broadcast by substituting their own advertisements. The Cable Television Networks law also reinforced the restriction on unauthorised advertisement transmission.

Conclusion: The conduct infringed copyright and broadcast reproduction rights and the finding was in favour of the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed because the interim injunction was justified on multiple substantive grounds arising from misrepresentation, interference with contractual relations, conversion, and infringement of statutory broadcast rights.

Ratio Decidendi: A cable operator who intercepts a protected broadcast and substitutes its own advertisements, with knowledge of the broadcaster's contractual and statutory rights, commits passing off, actionable interference with contract, conversion, and copyright or broadcast-right infringement.

---