Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
IN THE MATTER OF
MEGHA SHARMA......
.APPELLANT
Versus
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..6
STATEMENT OF FACTS..7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES.9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED....11
a) Whether
the
the
respondents
have
infrigned
petitioners
copyright..............................................................................................11
b) Whether the respondents have breached confenditablity...................................16
c) Whether the Learned Single Judge was right in staying the realse of the TV show
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
v.
Versus
Anr.
Another
Ab
Appeal Body
Art.
Article
Cal
Calcutta
OLR
Pvt
Private
e.g.
Example
ed.
Edition
Co
Company
Honble
Honourable
SC
Supreme Court
Ibid
Ibidem
Inc.
Incorporated
L.
Legal
Llt.
Limited
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Acts:
1. Indian Copyright Act,1957
Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69
Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v.. Coca Cola Co., (1995) 5 SCC 545
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to
appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by
any court or tribunal in the territory of India
(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any
court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether the respondents have infringed the petitioners copyright?
Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the respondents have infringed the petitioner copyright?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. Whether the respondents have infringed the petitioner copyright?
In the instant matter, the respondents humbly submit before Honble Apex Court that the
there has been no copyright violation, as the Appellants didnt register the same with the
Registrar of the Copyright. As per the Fact sheet it has been contended by the Appellant that
Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69
10
(Emphasis supplied)
12
publication thereof etc. are complied with. Otherwise a person who is innocent can in that
event be easily brought in the net of infringement under civil law or criminally, which can
never be the intention of the legislature.4
As observed by Lord Blackburn in the case of Julius v. Bishop of Oxford5 and as reiterated
by the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab Sikh Regular Motor Service, Moudhpara vs.
The Regional Transport Authority,Raipur and Anr6
"Enabling words are construed as compulsory whenever the object of the power is to
effectuate a legal right
Thus, it is clearly evident from the above Judgments that Appellants failed to comply with the
statutory requirements and hence there is no copyright.It is erroneous to understand Section
44 as not a mandatory provision.The word may in Section 44 should be construed as
shall. Further, as per the Constitution of Film Writer Association bye-laws The
Registration shall not be construed as 'Copyright Registration'. The said bye law disputes the
appellants position of claiming Copyright in the plot and the storyline.
13
(emphasis supplied)
In the landmark case of R.G Anand vs M/S. Delux Films & Ors8, it has been held by the
Supreme Court that -: .
There can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary
facts and violation of the copyright in such cases is confined to the form, manner and
arrangement and expression of the idea by the author of the copyright work.Where the theme
is the same but is presented and treated differently so that the subsequent work becomes a
completely new work, no question of violation of copyright arises.
In the instant matter, as per the above settled legal principles and the Doctrine of Ideaexpression dichotomy, it is clear that the plaintiff cannot claim any copyright in the idea of
Life and Times of four law students studying at prestigious law school. The general idea of
the storyline is already in public domain and hence it cannot become a monopoly of a
particular entity. Reference is requested to the movie Paper Chase released in 1973 which
is about the life of First year law student in Harvard Law School. In fact, the said claim goes
against the object of the Act and defeats the intention of legislature. The object of copyright is
7
8
14
Time Warner Entertainment ... v. Rpg Netcom And Ors AIR 2007 Delhi 226
2004 (1) CHN 448
11
672 F.2d 607 (7th Cir.)
12
2014(59)PTC292(Bom)
10
15
The information must be of a confidential nature. Something that is public property and
public knowledge cannot per se provide any foundation for proceedings for breach of
confidence. However confidential the circumstances of communication, there can be no
breach of confidence in revealing to others something that is already common
knowledge. But this must not be taken too far. Something that has been constructed
solely from materials in the public domain may possess the necessary quality of
confidentiality: for something new and confidential may have been brought into being by
the application of the skill and ingenuity of the human brain. Novelty depends on the
thing itself, and not upon the quality of its constituent parts. Whether it is described as
originality or novelty or ingenuity or otherwise, I think there must be some product of the
human brain, which suffices to confer a confidential nature upon the information.
Secondly, information must be communicated in circumstances that provide an
obligation of confidence no matter how secret and the information is, it cant be deemed
confidential if it is blurted out in public or is communicated which negate any duty of
holding its confidentiality (the unsealed envelope).
13
16
Thirdly, there must be an unauthorized use of the information to the detriment of the
person communicating it. Some of the statements of principle in the cases omit any
mention of detriment; others include it.
Breach of confidence is a common law tort that protects private information that is
conveyed in confidence. A claim for breach of confidence typically requires the
information to be of a confidential nature, which was communicated in confidence, and
was disclosed to the detriment of the claimant14.
The respondents humbly contend before this Honble court that the information
provided by the appellants is not confidential in nature. The script for the pilot episode
has been registered with the Indian Screen Writers Guild (ISWG), which is a nonstatutory authority. Thus it is further contended that if a particular concept is registered
with the ISWG, no injunction can be granted as after the submission of the concept to the
ISWG authorities, the same is in public domain. Therefore information that is already in
a public domain cant be deemed as confidential in nature as it fails the test laid in out in
the landmark case Coco v. A.N. Clark (Engineers) LTD.15
In the case R.G Anand v. M/s Delux Films & others16 the apex court stated that here
can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts
and violation of the copyright in such cases is confined to the form, manner and arrangement
and expression of the idea by the author of the copyrighted work. Where the same idea is
being developed in a different manner, it is manifest that the source being common,
similarities are bound to occur. In such a case the courts should determine whether or not the
similarities are on fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression adopted in
the copyrighted work. If the defendant's work were nothing but a literal imitation of the
copyrighted work with some variations here and there it would amount to violation of the
copyright. In other words, in order to be actionable the copy must be a substantial and
material one which at once leads to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty of an act of
piracy.
An idea per se has no copyright. But if the idea is developed into a concept fledged with
adequate details, then the same is capable of registration under the Copyright Act. The
14
Ibid
Ibid
16
R.G Anand v. M/s Delux Films & others, 1978 AIR 1613
15
17
17
Anil Gupta and Anr. v. Kunal Das Gupta and Ors, AIR 2002 Delhi 379
18
19
18
In a general view, before before granting an injunction, the court must be satisfied
about the following22
Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case?
Whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury if prayer for temporary injunction
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
is not granted?
Whether the balance of convenience is in favor of the plaintiff?
Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case: this is the first necessity that the
applicant needs to satisfy for an injunction. The plaintiff needs to make a prima facie
case in support of the right claimed by her the court must be satisfied that there is a
bona fide dispute raised by the applicant, that there is an arguable case for trial, which
20
19
a temporary injunction25.
Whether the plaintiff is or will suffer from an irreparable loss if the injunction is not
granted: this is the second condition that the plaintiff needs to satisfy the court with by
showing that he will suffer irreparable injury or loss if the injunction is not granted.
Whether the balance of convenience is in favor of the plaintiff: the third condition that
needs to be satisfied by the plaintiff is whether the balance of convenience is in favor
of the plaintiff. The court needs to be satisfied that the hardship or inconvenience
which is likely to be caused to the plaintiff by refusing the injunction will be greater
than that which is likely to be caused to the opposite party by granting it.
The objection of the interlocutory injunction, it stated; is to protect the plaintiff
against the injury by violation of his rights by which he could not adequately be
compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in
his favour at the trial. The need for such protection must be weighed against the
corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against the injury resulting from
his having being prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could
not be adequately compensated.26
23
Ibid
Martin Burn Ltd. v.. R.N. Banerjee, AIR 1958 SC 79
25
CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd., (1985) 1 SCC 260
26
Wander Ltd. & Anr. v. Antox India (P) Ltd, 1990 Supp (1) SCC 727
24
20
Also, even if there is a prima facie case made out by the plaintiffs they should fail
because the balance of convenience, and the likely prejudice to be caused to the two
sides on the two possibilities of grant or refusal of injunction, indicated that way is not
in their favour28.
In the case Twentieth Century Fox Film vs Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Ors.29 it was held
that
In the circumstances, the plaintiff has failed to make out prima facie case at the
stage. Since the serial has already been telecast, restraining the defendants from
telecasting the serial further will cause more inconvenience to the defendants, it is
more so because the serial of the defendant "Time Bomb" has already been telecast as
also the serial of the plaintiff. Despite the serial already having been telecast, the
plaintiff has not modified his prayers in any manner despite the passage of
considerable time. In these circumstances, it is apparent that defendant shall suffer
irreparable loss if the plaintiff is granted injunction as has been sought by him. It may
also lead to multiplicity of proceedings and in the circumstances, it will not be
appropriate even to direct the defendant to submit the script of his serial to the
plaintiff at this stage.
The respondents humbly submit that there was no cause to stay the release of the TV
show The Good Life and that the learned single judge erred in doing so. It is
important to note that the respondents had already set out a date for the release of the
pilot episode of the TV show and necessary time and money was invested in pilot
episode of the TV show. It is also very important to note that even if a prima facie
case is not established, the balance of convenience will have to be looked into By
27
R.M. Subbiah And Anr. v. N. Sankaran Nair And Anr, AIR 1979 Mad 56
28
Barbara Taylor Bradford v. Sahara Media Entertainment Ltd, 2004 (1) CHN 448
29
Twentieth Century Fox Film v. Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Ors., MIPR2012(2)377
21
Thus the respondents respectfully submit that there is no cause in granting this stay
due to the fact that a well established prima facie case had not been established, even
the balance of convenience was not in the appellants favor and the respondents
suffered grave damage and thus the learned single judge erred in his order to stay the
release of the TV show The Good Life.
22
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments
advanced, the respondents respectfully request and submit before this Honble Court to
adjudge that:
1. To dismiss the SLP filed against the order of division bench before the Honble Court.
2. There was no breach of confidence b
3. There was no infringement of copyright.
OR
May pass any order, decree or judgment in the light of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience
for which the counsel for Respondents shall pray dutybound as ever most humbly to this
Honble Court.
All of which is most respectfully, humbly and equitably submitted and affirmed before this
HonBle Court
Sd//_______________
Counsel for Respondents
Date: 31 July, 2015.
Place: New Delhi
23
24