Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Against “Dream Girl-2” Film Alleging Copyright Infringement, Imposes ₹2L Cost On Plaintiff
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a Suit against Bollywood film “Dream Girl-2” starring Actor Ayushmann Khurrana and Actress Ananya Pandey, which alleged copyright infringement by Balaji Telefilms Ltd.
The Plaintiff namely Ashim Kumar Bagchi filed an Interim Application seeking an injunction restraining exploitation of the film titled “DREAM GIRL -2”, produced by Balaji Telefilms on the grounds of (i) alleged infringement of the copyright in a purported literary work being the script titled “KAL KISNE DEKHA” which the Plaintiff claimed was re-registered under the title “THE SHOW MUST GO ON”; (ii) breach of confidence.
A Single Bench of Justice R.I. Chagla observed, “The Plaintiff has failed in his pleading to make out the fundamental aspects of the claim. Further, the Plaintiff has persisted with his action despite clear and stark dissimilarity between the rival works even after having had a chance to view the Defendants’ Film after its release. Significant time has also been expended in this hearing given that multiple rounds of pleadings were filed and arguments over multiple sessions. Hence, costs are required to be imposed on the Plaintiff in favour of Defendant Nos. 1 and 5 who are the contesting parties who have had to spend on legal fees.”
The Bench said that the Plaintiff’s claim for breach of confidence cannot be sustained.
Advocate Priyank Kapadia appeared for the Plaintiff/Applicant while Advocates rashmin khandekar and Anand Mohan appeared for the Defendants.
Factual Background
The Plaintiff stated that he had written and developed an original story in the form of a script for the purpose of having it made into a film. He stated that the ‘idea’ of his work is based on the concept of gender swap comedy wherein the protagonist, a male, dons the persona and performance of a female and tackles various comedic situations where his identity may get exposed. It was further stated that the arrangement of scenes, the comedic effect of specific situations, the profile of the characters and their development, all of which propels the story narrated in the Plaintiff’s script towards its climax/culmination and that the Plaintiff’s script is an original literary work within the meaning of the Copyright Act, 1957. It was also stated that the contents of the Plaintiff’s script are confidential and was shared by the Plaintiff with Defendant No.4 under strict conditions of confidence, in pursuit of the possibility of identifying a producer who would be willing to make a film with the Plaintiff’s script.
The Plaintiff submitted that the Defendants have in making the film Dream Girl-2, infringed the his copyright in the literary work initially titled “KAL KISNE DEKHA” subsequently changed to “THE SHOW MUST GO ON”. Hence, he filed a Suit and in August 2023, an Interim Application was taken out in the Suit, on the basis of the trailer announcing release of the Defendants’ film on August 25, 2023. The High Court had refused to restrain the release of the Defendants’ film without affording the Defendants an opportunity to file their replies, particularly in view of the Plaintiff having approached the Court at the eleventh hour prior to release, despite sufficient notice of the release date. The matter was thereafter argued finally at length and was reserved for Orders in December, 2024 granting the parties leave to file their Written Submissions.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above regard, remarked, “Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the prima facie view that the Plaintiff by alleging copyright infringement of the Plaintiff’s script by the Defendants’ Film is seeking a monopoly over matters in which ex-facie no copyright subsists to begin with. This includes common themes, ideas, unoriginal / stocks / scenes a faire matters, and other aspects directly flowing from such elements which are not protectable either by themselves or taken together.”
The Court noted that the Plaintiff has failed to make out a case for copyright protection of its script, particularly since protection is being sought of common plots, themes and other unprotectable elements apart from the fact that on a comparison of the Plaintiff’s script with the Defendants’ Film, the rival works are dissimilar.
“I have had the opportunity of viewing the Defendant’s Film and perusing the Plaintiff’s script. I find that there are differences / dissimilarities between the Plaintiff’s script and Defendants’ film”it added.
The Court was of the view that the rival works are entirely different and distinct.
“The Plaintiff has also alleged breach of confidence. In that context, I find much merit in the submission on behalf of Defendant Nos.1 and 5 that the Plaintiff has fallen back on its claim for breach of confidence being aware of the far-fetched nature of its claim for copyright infringement”it further said.
The Court observed that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy any of the three elements regarding breach of confidence i.e., firstly there is no identification of the confidential information with “precision and accuracy” and without such identification, it will not be possible to hold the information to be confidential; secondly, the Plaintiff has not been able to show that the information shared is original and not in public domain; and thirdly, the Plaintiff has failed to show any actionable similarity/misuse of confidential information in the Defendants’ Film.
Conclusion
The Court also noted, “The Plaintiff’s contention that the prior Suit filed by Defendant No.5 has a bearing on the present Suit is an entirely misconceived contention. The claim in the Suit filed by Defendant No.5 against Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.4 had nothing to do with the contents of the Defendants’ film. The Suit was with regard to the credit which had been given to Defendant No.4 and which Defendant No.5 had claimed that he was entitled to be given the credit. The Suit culminated into Consent Terms being filed and a decree passed in terms thereof, the basis of which is in the manner of displaying credits agreed to between the parties.”
The Court said that the Plaintiff despite having knowledge that the said Suit has nothing to do with the present Suit has relied upon the said Suit in yet another manner to seek a claim on copyright infringement or breach of confidence when it has none, hence, there is no merit in such contention of the Plaintiff.
“I find much merit in the submissions of Defendant Nos.1 and 5 that this being a Commercial Suit, the Commercial Courts Act applies and costs follow the event. … The Judgments relied upon by Mr. Khandekar and Mr. Mohan in support of their arguments on costs are apposite. It has been held that this Court’s scarce resources cannot be allowed to be squandered to indulge in fanciful claims. The conduct of the parties is relevant, including the frivolous nature of the claim. Further, the cap on compensatory costs has been removed. Accordingly, I find this to be a fit case to award costs to Defendant Nos. 1 and 5 which shall be borne by the Plaintiff”it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Interim Application with costs awarded to the Defendants in a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs (Rs. 1 lakh each) to be paid by the Plaintiff within four weeks.
Cause Title- Ashim Kumar Bagchi v. Balaji Telefilms Ltd. and Ors. (Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.22738 OF 2023 IN COMM IP SUIT NO.322 OF 2023)
Appearance:
Plaintiff: Advocates Priyank Kapadia and Aniketh Poojari.
Defendants: Advocates rashmin khandekar, anand mohan, rahul dhote, anushree ravta, and shwetank tripathi.