TEAM CODE- R 69

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Special Leave Petition No.: ____/2015

IN THE MATTER OF

MEGHA SHARMA......
.APPELLANT

Versus

VISHAL PRATAP SINGH..............................

RESPONDENT

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT R -69

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

The Good Life ..........................................19

8. PRAYER........24

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
v.

Versus

Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015
AIR

All India Reporter

Anr.

Another

Ab

Appeal Body

Art.

Article

Cal

Calcutta

OLR

Orrissa Law Review

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 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015
Books:
1. Halsburys Laws Of England, (4th Ed. Vol. 24)
Cases:
1. Mishra Bandhu Karyalaya And Ors v. Shivratanlal Koshal AIR 1970 MP 261
2. Brundaban Sahu v. B. Rajendra Subudhi AIR 1986 Ori 210
3. Dhiraj Dharamdas Dewani v.. Sonal Infosystems 2012(2)BomCR842
4. Punjab Sikh Regular Motor Service, Moudhpara v.. The Regional Transport
Authority,Raipur and Anr AIR 1996 SC 1318
5. Julius v. Bishop of Oxford HL 23 MAR 1880
6. Chancellor Masters of Oxford v. Narendra Publishing House MANU/DE/1377/2008
7. R.G Anand v. M/S. Delux Films & Ors 1978 AIR 1613, 1979 SCR (1) 218
8. Time Warner Entertainment ... v. Rpg Netcom And Ors AIR 2007 Delhi 226
9. Barbara Taylor Bradford v. Sahara Media Entertainment Ltd 2004 (1) CHN 448
10. Atari,Inc v.. North Am. Phillips Consumer Elecs Corp 672 F.2d 607 (7th Cir.)
11. Mansoob v. YRF 2014(59)PTC292(Bom)
12.

Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v.. Coca Cola Co., (1995) 5 SCC 545

13. Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 117

14. Martin Burn Ltd. v.. R.N. Banerjee, AIR 1958 SC 79
15. CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd., (1985) 1 SCC 260
16. Wander Ltd. & Anr. v. Antox India (P) Ltd, 1990 Supp (1) SCC 727
17. R.M. Subbiah And Anr. v. N. Sankaran Nair And Anr, AIR 1979 Mad 56
18. Twentieth Century Fox Film v. Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Ors., MIPR2012(2)377
19. Anil Gupta and Anr. v. Kunal Das Gupta and Ors, AIR 2002 Delhi 379
20. Coco v. A.N. Clark (Engineers) LTD, CHD 1968
21. Faris v. Enberg (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 313

Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015
The present case has been filed by the Appellant under Article 1361 of the Constitution of
India. The Respondents most respectfully submit to the jurisdiction of the Honble Supreme
Court of Narnia

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(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

Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015
1. Petition arises from Order of Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on Interim
Application setting aside the Order staying the release of the TV show The Good
Life.
2. Plaintiff claims to have conceptualized the initial plot of a new sitcom titled Life and
Stuff in 2011. The plot and storyline was then registered with the ISWG in the form
of a synopsis. The show pertained to life of of four law students studying at a
prestigious college.
3. The plaintiff conceptualized the sitcom TV show during her education abroad and
then later on worked it into a draft screenplay upon her return to India, sometime in
January 2013.
4. Plaintiff made further changes to the initial script of the pilot episode and the initial
screenplay as well as future plotlines and registered the same with the ISWG in or
around december of 2013. The final screenplay was titled Is it Legal?-four law
students living in Bangalore
5. Mr Vishal Pratap Singh(defendant) is chairman and MD of the production house
Dreams Unlimited Pvt. Ltd. He is a reputed Producer in the film industry and has also
been Executive Producer in popular TV shows such as Yaariyan, Dil, Pyar, aur
Woh etc.
6. The Plaintiff attempted to approach Mr Vishal Pratap Singh, original defendant No. 1
sometime in or around January 2014. Expectedly, she could not gain access to Mr
Vishal Pratap Singh. She persisted in her attempts to reach Mr Singh but found no
audience. As a last resort Ms Sharma decided to leave a covering letter as well as a
copy of the screenplay of the pilot episode were admittedly left at the reception desk
of Mr Singhs production house. The same is undisputed. The letter and the
screenplay were in an unsealed envelope. Ms Sharma also sent a covering letter in the
body of an email dated 16th January 2014 and attached the screenplay as well. The
receipt of the email was acknowledged by Singhs secretary.
7. Since Ms Sharma did not receive any communication till May 2014, she decided to
approach Mr Singh again. Mr Singh met Ms Sharma on 16th May 2014 where he
informed her that he was not interested in producing a situational comedy. the fact
that the meeting took place is not under dispute. it is the defendant's case that the
envelope was also returned to Ms Sharma. the plaintiff has stated that during the
meeting the parties discussed the indian market for an english sitcom based on the
lives of law students. the defendants admit of the meeting but dispute the contents
7
Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015
thereof. the defendant submits that no discussions about the plot were discussed in the
meeting.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether the respondents have infringed the petitioners copyright?
Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015
2. Whether the respondents have breached the confendialtity?
3. Whether the Learned Single Judge was right in staying the release of the TV show
The Good Life?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the respondents have infringed the petitioner copyright?

Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015
The appelants have wrongluy submitted that Mr.Vishal Pratap Singh has infringed
there copyright. As per FWA Bye Laws Registration shall not be construed as
Registration of Copyright. Hence they never had any copyright .
2. Whether the respondents have breached the confendiatlity?
There was no breach of confidentiality on behalf of the respondents as the
information was not confidential in nature; the plaintiff registered it with a nonstatutory body (ISWG) thus making it a public domain. Moreover the plaintiff gave
the script in an unsealed envelope thus giving rise to the fact that the plaintiff didnt
intend to or communicate that the information enclosed in the unsealed envelope was
confidential there was no breach of confidentiality on behalf of the respondents as the
information was not confidential in nature, the plaintiff registered it with a non
statutory body (ISWG) thus making it a public domain. Moreover the plaintiff gave
the script in an unsealed envelope thus giving rise to the fact that the plaintiff didnt
intend to or communicate that the information enclosed in the unsealed envelope was
confidential
3. Whether the Learned Single Judge was right in staying the release of the TV
show The Good Life?
The learned single judge erred 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.

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

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015
they conceptualized the plot and the initial storyline of the Show Life and Stuff with the
Indian Screen Writers Guild.
For the purpose of clarity, the applicable provision of Indian Copyright Act, 1957 is
reproduced below -:
9. Copyright Office. - (1) There shall be established for the purposes of this Act an office to
be
called the Copyright Office.
(2) The Copyright Office shall be under the immediate control of the Registrar of Copyrights
who
shall act under the superintendence and direction of the Central Government.
(3) There shall be a seal for the Copyright Office.
44. Register of Copyrights -: There shall be kept at the Copyright Office a register in the
prescribed form to be called the Register of Copyrights in which may be entered the names or
titles of works and the names and addresses of authors, publishers and owners of copyright
and such other particulars as may be prescribed.

(Emphasis supplied)

51. When copyright infringed -: Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed

a. when any person, without a license granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar
of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a license so granted or of
any condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act
(i) does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of
the copyright, or 1[(ii) permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the
work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in
the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such
communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright; or] 1[(ii) permits for
profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such
communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not
aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such communication to the public
would be an infringement of copyright; or]"
(b) when any person
(i) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale
or hire, or
(ii) distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the
11
Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015
owner of the copyright, or
(iii) by way of trade exhibits in public, or
(iv) imports 2[***] into India, 2[***] into India," any infringing copies of the work:
3[Provided that nothing in sub-clause (iv) shall apply to the import of one copy of any work,
for the private and domestic use of the importer.] Explanation.For the purposes of this
section, the reproduction of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work in the form of a
cinematograph film shall be deemed to be an infringing copy.
The Statement of Objects and Reason for enactment of Copyright Act 1957 is stated as under
-:
(1) A Copyright Office is sought to be established under the immediate control of a Registrar
of Copyrights who shall act under the superintendence and direction of the Central
Government. The principal function of the Copyright Office will be to maintain Register
of Copyrights in which may be entered, at the option of the authors, the names and
addresses of authors and owners of copyright for the time being, and other relevant
particulars. Such Register will easily make available useful information to interested
members of public in regard to copyrighted works. In order to encourage registration of
copyrights, provision is made that no proceeding regarding infringement of copyright
shall be instituted unless copyright is registered in the Copyright Office. In addition to
being in charge of the Copyright Office, the duties of the Registrar of Copyrights will be
to entertain and dispose of applications for compulsory licenses and to inquire into
complaints of importation of infringing copies. An appeal to the Copyright Board is
provided for against the orders of the Registrar of Copyrights.
(Emphasis supplied)
In the case of Mishra Bandhu Karyalaya And Ors vs Shivratanlal Koshal2, it been held by
the MP High Court that -:
Under the Copyright Act, 1957. It appears that under Sections 13 and 45, the registration of
book with the Registrar of Copyrights, is a condition for acquiring copyright with respect to
it. A plain reading of the several provisions of the Act, leaves no doubt in our minds that a
copyright in a book now is only secured if it is an original compilation and has been duly
registered according to the provisions of the 1957 Act. Once it is so registered, the author is
deemed to acquire property rights in the book. The right arising from the registration of the
2

AIR 1970 MP 261

Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69

12

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015
book can be the subject-matter of civil or criminal remedy, so that, without it the author can
have no rights, nor remedies in spite of the fact that his work is an original one.
In the case of Brundaban Sahu vs B. Rajendra Subudhi3, It was held that Registration was
mandatory for action for infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957.In another case it has
been held that,
Unless such person (the infringer) knows that there is any particular owner of the copyright
in India or that such owner of copyright has registered his work under Section 44 of the Act
before he did, attributing infringement by him or on his part intentionally or unintentionally,
would be an preposterous. Such a person who is infringing the copyright in a work must be
deemed to have knowledge about the owner of the copyright and such knowledge cannot be
attributed unless the provisions of Chapter 10,

regarding registration of copyright,

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.

AIR 1986 Ori 210

Dhiraj Dharamdas Dewani v. Sonal Infosystems 2012(2)BomCR842

HL 23 MAR 1880
6
AIR 1996 SC 1318
5

Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69

13

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015
It is humbly submitted by the Respondents that the appellants are wrong in claiming the
copyright in the idea of Life and Times of four law students studying at prestigious law
school. Its a fundamental principle of copyright law that there is no protection for an idea.
Explaining the Doctrine of Idea-Expression Dichotomy, the Delhi High court held that -:
Copyright Law is premised on the promotion of creativity through sufficient protection. On
other hand, various exemption and doctrines in copyright law whether statutorily embedded
or judicially innovated, recognize the equally compelling need to promote creative activity
and ensure that the privilege granted by copyright do not stifle dissemination of information.
Two doctrine that could be immediately be summoned are the Idea-expression dichotomy and
the doctrine of fair use. Public Interest in the free flow of information is ensured through
idea-expression dichotomy, which ensures that no copyright is granted in ideas, facts or
information. This creates a public pool of information and idea from which everyone can
draw. At the same time, the Judge Leval observes that all creativity is in part of derivative, in
that, no creativity is completely original : Each advance stands on building blocks fashioned
by prior thinkers. 7

(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

Chancellor Masters of Oxford v. Narendra Publishing House MANU/DE/1377/2008

1978 AIR 1613, 1979 SCR (1) 218

Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69

14

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015
not to create any legal or intellectual property rights in the idea but in the final object or the
work which is created as a result of the effort made to give a "physical"shape to an idea 9.
Further, the producer in past have already produced shows on theme of love such as
Yarriyan, Dil,Pyar aur Woh etc..
In the case of Barbara Taylor Bradford vs Sahara Media Entertainment Ltd10
If plots and ordinary prototype characters were to be protected by the copyright law, then
soon would come a time in the literary world, when no author would be able to write
anything at all without infringing copyright. Fathers, mothers, revenge, lust, sudden coming
into fortune.
It is contended by the plaintiffs that apart from the theme,there also exists many more
similarities in the defendant's work. It is humbly submitted by the respondents that mere
hackneyed elements cannot furnish the basics of finding substantial finding. The plaintiff
contends that one of the similarities is is how the boy asks out the girl for dinner. As per the
fact sheet, the relevant part is reproduced below-:
UDIT: Hey, I was wondering... Did it hurt when you fell down from heaven?
SANYA: (laughing) Oh my god that is so lame!
UDIT: Yeah well. So you are not into clichs. Are you into lunch at least?
SANYA: Oh god, come on
In the case of Atari,Inc vs. North Am. Phillips Consumer Elecs Corp11, scenes a faire refer
to incident, character or settings which are as a practical matter indispensable or at least
standard, in the treatment of a given topic. The same doctrine is also reiterated by the
Bombay High Court in the case of Mansoob Haider vs. YRF12 and held that scene a faire,
logical consequences of common actions or sequence of events that must necessarily follow
from a common theme. For plaintiff claim to succeed, it imperative for them to prove that
these ingredients are original in themselves. However, any person draw such parallels and
can claim infringement of copyright. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to show that
commonality not in dissected and disparate elements but to show those elements which are
original and not in public domain. The plaintiff is wrong in claiming that uniqueness of
9

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

Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69

15

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015
plot, theme, storyline is not in public domain. The show talks about the life of college
students. Scenes like A lame pick up line and girl laughing to that, the basketball scene, the
canteen scene, dispute between the landlord and tenant or dispute between the neighbor and
the tenant, tenant throwing a huge party with alcohol and hiding alcohol by doing something
witty are cliche or scenes a faire and thus are integral part of college life. They are there is
movies like Happy Ending where the actor uses lame pick up lines to flirt, in the movie
Project X where the school students invite huge number of students for a party with alcohol
and subsequent dispute between the neighbor and the students.Hence copyright doesnt exist
in such work and there is no infringement of copyright.
2. Whether the respondents have breached the confendiatlity?
The guiding principles of the law confidentiality are discussed in the case Coco v. A.N. Clark
(Engineers) LTD13. This case provides us with three tests as to whether information is
confidential or not.

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

Coco v. A.N. Clark (Engineers) LTD, CHD 1968

Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69

16

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015

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

Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69

17

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015
novelty and innovation of the concept of the plaintiff resides in combing of a reality TV show
with a subject like match making for the purpose of marriage.17
An actionable breach of confidence will arise when an idea, whether or not protectable, is
offered to another in confidence, and is voluntarily received by the offeree in confidence with
the understanding that it is not to be disclosed to others, and is not to be used by the offeree
for purposes beyond the limits of the confidence without the offeror's permission. In order to
prevent the unwarranted creation or extension of a monopoly and restraint on progress in
art, a confidential relationship will not be created from the mere submission of an idea to
another. There must exist evidence of the communication of the confidentiality of the
submission or evidence from which a confidential relationship can be inferred. Among the
factors from which such an inference can be drawn are: proof of the existence of an impliedin-fact contract (Davies v. Krasna, 245 Cal.App.2d 535 [54 Cal.Rptr. 37]); proof that the
material submitted was protected by reason of sufficient novelty and elaboration (Fink v.
Goodson-Todman Enterprises, Ltd., 9 Cal.App.3d 996 [88 Cal.Rptr. 649]); or proof of a
particular relationship such as partners, joint adventurers, principal and agent or buyer and
seller under certain circumstances. (Blaustein v. Burton, 9 Cal.App.3d 161, 187 [88 Cal.Rptr.
319]; Thompson v. California Brewing Co., 150 Cal.App.2d 469, 475 [310 P.2d 436].)18
The respondents would like to contend that the plaintiff while giving us an unsealed
envelope nowhere notified to us that the letter was to be kept confidential. As for the email
that is sent by the plaintiff, the respondents contend that the defendants did not open the
attachment that may or may not have had some confidential information sent by the plaintiff.
In the legal parlance the issue of confidentiality comes up where an obligation of confidence
arises between a data collector and a data subject This may flow from a variety of
circumstances or in relation to different types of information, which could be employment,
medical or financial information. An obligation of confidence gives the data subject the right
not to have his information used for the purposes or disclosed without his permission unless
there are other overriding reasons in the public interest for this to happen. That is, when
information for a purpose other than that for which it was provided.19

17

Anil Gupta and Anr. v. Kunal Das Gupta and Ors, AIR 2002 Delhi 379

18

Faris v. Enberg (1979)

Cinevista case

19

Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69

18

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015
This honble court shall consider the validity of the script passed on by the petitioner to the
respondent for the perusal of the respondent, which is stated that during the meeting the
respondent had denied to make the same, as he didnt find it viable for his business. The sole
reason as the to delivery of the petitioners script in dispute was given in an unsealed envelope
does not direct as for the malicious usage of the respondent for his professional use.
3. Whether the Learned Single Judge was right in staying the release of the TV show
The Good Life?
a) Whether there is enough cause to stay the release of the TV show The Good
Life
An injunction is a judicial process whereby a party is required to do, or to refrain from doing,
any particular act. It is a remedy in the form of an order of the court addressed to a particular
act. It is a remedy in form of an order of the court addressed to a particular person that either
prohibits him from doing or continuing to do a particular act, or orders him to carry out a
certain act20. The primary purpose of granting interim relief is the preservation of property in
dispute till legal rights and conflicting claims of the parties before the court are adjudicated.
In other words the object of making an order regarding interim relief is to evolve a workable
formula to the extent called for by the demands of the situation keeping in mind the pros and
cons of the matter and striking a delicate balance between two conflicting interests i.e., injury
and prejudice is maybe caused even to the defendants. The court must weigh one need against
another and determine where the balance of convenience lies and may pass an appropriate
order in exercise of its discretionary power21.

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

Halsburys Laws Of England, (4th Ed. Vol. 24)

Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co., (1995) 5 SCC 545
22
Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 117
21

Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69

19

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015
needs investigation and a decision on merits.23 While determining this, the relevant
consideration is whether on the evidence led, it is possible to arrive at the conclusion
in question and not whether that is the only conclusion which can be arrived at on that
evidence. 24 The existence of a prima facie case alone does not entitle the applicant for

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

In cases where an equitable relief would be sufficiently compensated for monetarily,

then the Courts refrain from being wooden and granting injunctions alone instead of
contemplating the nearest approximation, which it can make. The mere fact that a
prima facie case exists for the grant of an injunction or even the additional
intelligence that a party seeking for it would suffer irreparable harm or inconvenience
by this, may not be sufficient criteria for the granting of an injunction. Before the
Court exercises its jurisdiction, to grant such a interim relief, which is essentially an
equitable and a discretionary remedy the Court will have to be further satisfied that

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

Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69

20

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015
the comparative mischief or inconvenience which is likely to arise from withholding
an injunction will be greater than that which is likely to arise from granting it27.

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

Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69

21

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015
granting such an interim stay it has caused a great amount of hardship and
inconvenience to the respondents, which would not have been caused to the appellants
if the pilot episode were released.
The respondents would further like to contend that an interim stay should only be
granted if no monetary compensation could be given. In this case since it has been
established that there was no copyright infringement and no breach of confidence, the
learned single judge erred in staying the release of the TV show. It can also be
inferred from the authorities cited above that if a substantial investment of both time
and money has been made, it will cause grave injustice and the balance on
convenience will not lie in favor of the appellant and therefore no interlocutory stay or
injunction should be granted.

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.

Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69

22

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015

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

Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69

23

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015

Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69

24