Copyright title, confidentiality and substantial similarity must all be shown before interim infringement relief can be granted.

Copyright registration under Section 48 is only prima facie evidence and does not conclusively prove authorship or title. On the material described, the claimant failed to establish clear subsisting copyright title or standing, because the record cast doubt on sole authorship and valid title transfer. The prior assignment to Zee was stated to vest rights in perpetuity, with no shown re-assignment or reversion, so the copyright did not return to the claimant and Zee was necessary to resolve the dispute. The claimant also failed to prove a confidential disclosure made by it, or substantial similarity between the works sufficient for infringement or springboard relief. Interim protection was therefore refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plaintiff had established subsisting copyright title and standing to sue for infringement and breach of confidentiality; (ii) whether the prior assignment of rights to Zee prevented any reversion of copyright to the plaintiff and made Zee a necessary party; (iii) whether there had been a confidential disclosure to the defendant and whether the defendant's work was shown to be substantially similar so as to support infringement or springboard relief.

Issue (i): whether the plaintiff had established subsisting copyright title and standing to sue for infringement and breach of confidentiality.

Analysis: Registration under Section 48 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is only prima facie evidence of the particulars entered in the register and does not conclusively prove authorship. On the material placed, the claim of sole authorship was doubtful, the record suggested involvement of another writer, and the plaintiff's own pleadings and documents undermined its assertion that Ms. Kothari was the sole author and that valid title passed intact to the plaintiff.

Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to establish clear copyright title and standing in its own favour.

Issue (ii): whether the prior assignment of rights to Zee prevented any reversion of copyright to the plaintiff and made Zee a necessary party.

Analysis: The development agreement with Zee assigned the relevant rights in perpetuity and provided that those rights would remain vested in Zee notwithstanding non-exercise or termination. Clause 6.6 did not amount to a re-assignment on abandonment, and no formal termination or re-assignment back to the plaintiff was shown. In that situation, the plaintiff could not claim that the copyright had reverted to it, and Zee's presence was required to effectively adjudicate the controversy.

Conclusion: The copyright did not revert to the plaintiff and Zee was a necessary party.

Issue (iii): whether there had been a confidential disclosure to the defendant and whether the defendant's work was shown to be substantially similar so as to support infringement or springboard relief.

Analysis: A claim for breach of confidence required a clear showing of disclosure of protectable material in confidence, the claimant's right to make that disclosure, and a real causal nexus between the disclosed work and the allegedly infringing work. The release form and surrounding correspondence indicated that the pitch had been made on behalf of Baba Arts, not by the plaintiff or Ms. Kothari in her personal capacity. The plaintiff also failed to establish that the works compared were the same work or sufficiently comparable, and the alleged similarities were not borne out by the actual material placed on record.

Conclusion: No confidential disclosure or actionable similarity was proved.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff failed on title, standing, confidentiality, and similarity, so interim protection was refused and the motion could not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: A copyright claimant seeking interim relief must show subsisting title, a legally cognisable confidential disclosure made by the claimant, and a comparable basis for alleging substantial similarity; registration alone and unproved assertions of reversion or confidentiality are insufficient.

---