2015 (8) TMI 865 - HC - Companies Law

Delhi HC allows dissemination of cricket match information without broadcaster license, rejecting copyright claims over factual data

Delhi HC set aside a single judge's interim injunction that restrained appellant from disseminating ball-by-ball cricket match information without ... Dissemination of information – Copyright over Information – property right in 'scores' and other happenings on field towards cricketing events in India - Single Judge vide impugned order granted limited interim injunction restraining appellant from disseminating contemporaneous match information in form of ball-by-ball or minute-by-minute score updates/match alerts for premium, without obtaining license from respondent – Appellant alleged that no statute creates property right in 'scores' and other happenings on field; consequently Court fell into error in creating new property rights – Whether Respondents claim was precluded by Section 16 of Copyright Act – Held that:- Unlike Designs Act and Trademarks Act which drew from pre-existing common law rights, in case of Copyright Act, 'except under provisions of Act, there cannot be copyright under common law – By Section 16,'copyright or any similar right' (in work) apart from what is created by Act is precluded – Broadcasting rights are 'akin' to copyrights – Respondent seeks protection of widest amplitude (in respect of not preventing reproduction of content of broadcast), but facts underlying broadcast, was facially untenable – Such rights have long been held to be barred as they are 'similar' to copyright protection – Thus, rights claimed by respondent, over and above broadcasting rights, to prevent others from publishing or sharing match information or facts, for irrespective of commercial or non-commercial use, was precluded by Section 16 of Copyrights Act – If Parliament had intended such rights to exist, they would have been enacted, with suitable mechanisms for their enforcement and effectuation. Dissemination of Information – Unjust Enrichment – Whether Respondents were unjustly enriched by dissemination of match information – Held that:- once we recognize that mere information cannot be subject matter of protection under common law, it becomes apparent that other means continue to remain available to protect such information – Doctrine of unfair competition prohibiting misappropriation of match information would either mean that misappropriation under common law can supersede Copyright Act or that copying and misappropriation refer to two distinct acts – Individual who freely accepts benefits of services of another must, on account of such unjust enrichment, restitute other - runs into difficulty in copyright claims – Thus, claim for copyright infringement would in no way differ qualitatively from unjust infringement claim over copyright subject matter that was not covered under Copyright Act. Even if claim of unjust enrichment was seen on merits, such claim cannot prohibit Appellant from disseminating match information, but rather, only be basis for restitutionary award – Section 38 of Specific relief act, 1963 suggests that obligations not spelt out in express terms and not found in either contract or statute, but arising out of relationship or peculiar conditions are enforceable through injunction – None of said conditions exist to entitle respondent to injunction – Therefore respondent cannot claim injunction based on either doctrine of unfair competition or unjust enrichment – Recognizing doctrine of unfair competition would inevitably restrict appellant’s ability to disseminate information, undoubtedly crucial component of Article 19(1)(a) –Therefore Respondents claim for ad interim injunction and claims for unfair competition and unjust enrichment cannot be granted – Consequently, impugned judgment set aside – Decided in favour of Appellant. Issues Involved:1. Whether BCCI has the right to monetize the information arising from a cricket match organized by it.2. Whether the defendants are free-riding on the efforts of the plaintiff/BCCI.3. Whether the score alert/match updates are already in the public domain.4. Whether the defendants have a freedom under Article 19(1)(a) to disseminate contemporaneous match information.5. Whether the public interest needs to be kept in mind before considering the rival claims.6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interim injunction.Detailed Analysis:1. Monetization Rights of BCCI:The court examined whether BCCI, as the organizer of cricketing events in India, has the right to monetize the information arising from these events. The plaintiffs argued that BCCI had assigned exclusive rights, including 'Mobile Rights' and 'Mobile Activation Rights,' to Star India Pvt. Ltd. (Star), which were being violated by the defendants. The court noted that BCCI's primary source of revenue is through monetizing cricket content, and the defendants' actions were seen as encroaching on these rights.2. Free-Riding Allegations:The court addressed the plaintiffs' claim that the defendants were engaging in 'unfair competition,' commercial misappropriation, or unjust commercial enrichment by disseminating match information without a license. The defendants countered that they were merely reporting factual information that had entered the public domain. The court found that the defendants were indeed competing directly with the plaintiffs by providing contemporaneous score updates/match alerts, thus constituting free-riding.3. Public Domain Argument:The court considered whether the match information was already in the public domain. The defendants argued that they were disseminating information that was publicly available. However, the court held that the information did not enter the public domain simultaneously with the events due to a time lag in transmission. Therefore, the defendants' actions were not justified under the public domain argument.4. Freedom of Speech and Expression:The defendants argued that their actions were protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. The court acknowledged this right but emphasized the need to balance it against the plaintiffs' right to monetize their event. The court concluded that the defendants' dissemination of ball-by-ball or minute-by-minute updates for a premium could not be protected under Article 19(1)(a).5. Public Interest Considerations:The court examined the need to consider public interest while adjudicating the claims. It noted that while the public has a right to receive information, this right must be balanced against the plaintiffs' commercial interests. The court found that the plaintiffs' rights to monetize the event should be protected to ensure the continued promotion and organization of cricket in India.6. Entitlement to Interim Injunction:The court evaluated whether the plaintiffs were entitled to an interim injunction. The single judge had granted a limited interim injunction restraining the defendants from disseminating contemporaneous match information without a license. The appellate court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the plaintiffs' rights to monetize the event were being infringed upon by the defendants' actions.Conclusion:The court concluded that the plaintiffs' claims for ad interim injunction based on ownership of facts, the 'hot news' principle, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment could not be granted. The claims were found to be statutorily precluded. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the learned Single Judge's order, allowing the appeals and disposing of all pending applications without any order as to costs.