Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2015 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 865 - HC - Companies LawDissemination of information Copyright over Information property right in "scores" and other happenings on field towards cricketing events in India - Single Judge vide impugned order granted limited interim injunction restraining appellant from disseminating contemporaneous match information in form of ball-by-ball or minute-by-minute score updates/match alerts for premium, without obtaining license from respondent Appellant alleged that no statute creates property right in "scores" and other happenings on field; consequently Court fell into error in creating new property rights Whether Respondents claim was precluded by Section 16 of Copyright Act Held that:- Unlike Designs Act and Trademarks Act which drew from pre-existing common law rights, in case of Copyright Act, "except under provisions of Act, there cannot be copyright under common law By Section 16,"copyright or any similar right" (in work) apart from what is created by Act is precluded Broadcasting rights are "akin" to copyrights Respondent seeks protection of widest amplitude (in respect of not preventing reproduction of content of broadcast), but facts underlying broadcast, was facially untenable Such rights have long been held to be barred as they are "similar" to copyright protection Thus, rights claimed by respondent, over and above broadcasting rights, to prevent others from publishing or sharing match information or facts, for irrespective of commercial or non-commercial use, was precluded by Section 16 of Copyrights Act If Parliament had intended such rights to exist, they would have been enacted, with suitable mechanisms for their enforcement and effectuation. Dissemination of Information Unjust Enrichment Whether Respondents were unjustly enriched by dissemination of match information Held that:- once we recognize that mere information cannot be subject matter of protection under common law, it becomes apparent that other means continue to remain available to protect such information Doctrine of unfair competition prohibiting misappropriation of match information would either mean that misappropriation under common law can supersede Copyright Act or that copying and misappropriation refer to two distinct acts Individual who freely accepts benefits of services of another must, on account of such unjust enrichment, restitute other - runs into difficulty in copyright claims Thus, claim for copyright infringement would in no way differ qualitatively from unjust infringement claim over copyright subject matter that was not covered under Copyright Act. Even if claim of unjust enrichment was seen on merits, such claim cannot prohibit Appellant from disseminating match information, but rather, only be basis for restitutionary award Section 38 of Specific relief act, 1963 suggests that obligations not spelt out in express terms and not found in either contract or statute, but arising out of relationship or peculiar conditions are enforceable through injunction None of said conditions exist to entitle respondent to injunction Therefore respondent cannot claim injunction based on either doctrine of unfair competition or unjust enrichment Recognizing doctrine of unfair competition would inevitably restrict appellants ability to disseminate information, undoubtedly crucial component of Article 19(1)(a) Therefore Respondents claim for ad interim injunction and claims for unfair competition and unjust enrichment cannot be granted Consequently, impugned judgment set aside Decided in favour of Appellant.
|