2015 (12) TMI 710 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses Plaintiff's motion for injunction due to lack of evidence, ownership challenge, and absence of similarity.

Inception Media LLP Versus Star India Pvt Ltd, Ravi Ojha Production Enterprises

The court dismissed the Plaintiff's motion for an interim injunction, citing the failure to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and ... Copyright infringement and breach of confidentiality - The Plaintiff claims to hold the copyright in a concept note for a proposed television serial called 'Ye Tera Ghar Ye Mera Ghar' - Held that:- Nothing in either of the two documents supports the comparative chart that was shown to me on 11th September 2015. Here, the Plaintiff claims its story includes themes about the ghost family claiming ownership of the house, being murdered, hoping for revenge and justice and so on. There is a welter of additional material in this chart, all claiming similarity. But what is the source of this? It is not to be found in the 'literary work’ annexed to the Plaint and on which the suit is brought. It is not to be found in the slide presentation said to have been made to Star India. Is it a further iteration of the work as developed for Zee? If it is, then it has never been disclosed to Star India, and, in any case, it would be for Zee to file suit. This would be so even on an acceptance of the Plaintiff’s assertion that it retained the copyright in the initial work despite the Agreement with Zee. A more helpful comparison is the one that is provided by Star India in paragraph 20 of its Reply, and it shows the very marked difference between the two works As a matter of law, when copyright infringement is alleged in this form, and in relation to a concept, there must be an established comparable similarity between the work in which copyright is said to subsist and the work said to be infringing. A person cannot claim copyright in some work, and then contrast the defendant’s work with some entirely different work of unknown provenance and at a very great intellectual and literary remove from the work in which copyright is said to exist. This is where the Plaintiff’s case fails the Beyond Dreams test, and fails it utterly. Gupte J held that a first pre-requisite was to identify the confidential information itself. That is not done. Second, it must be material not in the public domain. The 'crux and essence’ claimed by the Plaintiff sits squarely in the public domain. Then, the material disclosed must be sufficiently developed to lend itself to realization; and this takes us to the springboard or kernel doctrine, which has it that breach of confidentiality liability will arise where it is shown, the other tests being satisfied, that the plaintiff’s work lies at the heart of the offending or infringing work; and that the rival work has only dressed up the kernel with additional material. I would add to this a further test, viz., a demonstration that the plaintiff’s work on which the suit is brought is indeed comparable to that of the defendant. All these tests, including the factual test of whether or not there was a handing over of proprietory material in circumstances of confidence, must be established. None are. The Motion fails. It is dismissed. Issues involved:1. Copyright Infringement2. Breach of Confidentiality3. Plaintiff's Right to Bring Suit4. Authorship and Ownership of Copyright5. Assignment of Rights to Zee6. Disclosure in Confidence7. Similarity in WorksIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Copyright Infringement:The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants infringed its copyright in a concept note for a television serial titled 'Ye Tera Ghar Ye Mera Ghar.' The Plaintiff claimed that Star India used this concept to create a similar show, 'Zindagi Abhi Baki Hai Mere Ghost,' which led Zee Entertainment to abandon their development agreement with the Plaintiff.2. Breach of Confidentiality:The Plaintiff argued that the concept note was disclosed to Star India under circumstances of confidentiality. However, Star India later declined to develop the concept, only to allegedly use it for their own show. The Plaintiff relied on the 'springboard doctrine' to assert that their concept formed the kernel of the Defendants' work.3. Plaintiff's Right to Bring Suit:The Defendants contested the Plaintiff's right to sue, questioning whether the Plaintiff held any subsisting copyright in the concept note. They argued that the rights were likely with Zee and that the Plaintiff's partner, Nanditaa Kothari, might not be the author.4. Authorship and Ownership of Copyright:The Plaintiff claimed that Nanditaa Kothari was the sole author and absolute owner of the concept note, which included the concept, story, character sketches, and screenplay. However, emails indicated that other individuals, such as Harsh Tyagi and Nitin Keswani, contributed to the work, casting doubt on Kothari's sole authorship.5. Assignment of Rights to Zee:The Development Agreement between the Plaintiff and Zee assigned all rights, title, and interest in the developed concept to Zee in perpetuity. The Plaintiff argued that Zee's abandonment of the project resulted in a reversion of rights to the Plaintiff. However, the court found no formal termination or re-assignment of rights from Zee to the Plaintiff, thus questioning the Plaintiff's standing to sue.6. Disclosure in Confidence:The Plaintiff claimed that the concept note was disclosed to Star India in confidence. However, the court noted that a release form was signed by Nikhil Tanwani on behalf of Baba Arts, suggesting that the disclosure was made by Baba Arts, not the Plaintiff. The court found no evidence that Star India was aware that the disclosure was made independently by Kothari.7. Similarity in Works:The court examined the similarities between the Plaintiff's concept note and the Defendants' show. The Plaintiff's work involved a human family living with a ghost family, whereas the Defendants' show had a different storyline involving a destitute youth and a ghost family seeking revenge. The court found no substantial similarity between the two works.Conclusion:The court dismissed the Plaintiff's motion for an interim injunction, finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irretrievable prejudice. The Plaintiff's claims of sole authorship and ownership were undermined by evidence of contributions from others. The assignment to Zee and the lack of formal re-assignment further weakened the Plaintiff's standing. The court also found no convincing evidence of disclosure in confidence or substantial similarity between the works.