Case Study: Akuate Internet Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Star India Pvt. Ltd.

By Harish Khan 10 Minutes Read

“The “Hot News” doctrine and claims of unfair competition or unjust enrichment cannot override the statutory provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, or infringe on constitutional freedoms.”

Citation: MIPR 2013 (3) 1 Del (DB)

Date of Judgement: 30th August, 2013

Court: High Court of Delhi, Division Bench

Bench: S. Ravindra Bhatt, Najmi Waziri

Facts

• The Board of Cricket Control in India (BCCI) granted exclusive broadcasting rights to Star India Pvt. Ltd. (the plaintiff/respondent) to disseminate all information and content emanating from cricket matches, including live recordings. Akuate Internet Services Pvt. Ltd. (Cricbuzz), along with Idea Cellular Ltd. and OnMobile Global Ltd., began providing SMS services offering contemporaneous ball-by-ball coverage of live cricket matches.
• Star India Pvt. Ltd. filed three suits against these companies, alleging infringement of mobile distribution rights and claiming that their rights to disseminate match information were violated. BCCI, although named as a defendant, supported Star India Pvt. Ltd., asserting its rights over all information related to the cricket matches it organized and promoted.
• Star India Pvt. Ltd. relied on the “Hot News” doctrine, the tort of unjust enrichment, and the concept of quasi-proprietary rights to argue that the defendants were unfairly competing by providing real-time updates. The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court granted ad interim relief in favour of Star India Pvt. Ltd., citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in International News Services v. Associated Press,[1] which recognized similar protection for “hot news.”
• The defendants contended that the “Hot News” doctrine was not recognized in Indian law and that factual information like match updates is in the public domain. They argued that such information cannot be copyrighted. The defendants also invoked their right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)[2] of the Constitution, arguing that any restriction on this right should be imposed legislatively, not through judicial means.

Judgment of the Delhi High Court

The Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court granted an ad interim relief, relying heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court judgment in International News Services v. Associated Press.[3]

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside the Single Judge’s decision, rejecting the application of the “Hot News” doctrine and the claim of quasi-proprietary rights in the information from cricketing events.

The court emphasized that Section 16 of the Act[4] precludes claims to any rights in works defined under Section 2(y) of the Act[5] except those explicitly recognized under the Copyright Act. The rights Star India Pvt. Ltd. claimed, which went beyond the broadcasting rights granted, were not recognized under the Act and were precluded by Section 16[6].

The court found the “Hot News” doctrine, originating from International News Services v. Associated Press,[7] to be outdated and inapplicable. The doctrine, which protected news as quasi-property, was deemed inconsistent with modern copyright law and had been diluted in the U.S. The court concurred with National Basketball Association v. Motorola Inc.,[8] noting that such claims only survive when parties are in direct competition, which was not the case here.

The court ruled that facts like match updates do not qualify for protection under Indian copyright law as they lack the required “modicum of creativity” per Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak[9], The BCCI’s and Star’s claims to exclusive rights over such information were invalid, as factual information cannot be the subject of copyright or quasi-property rights.

The court dismissed claims of unfair competition and unjust enrichment. It held that the appropriation of factual information, not copyright or proprietary rights, could not be protected under these doctrines. The court found that the defendant’s income was generated from their own efforts and not at Star’s expense. Even under the “but-for” test, the defendants could have earned from their activities independently of Star’s broadcasting rights. Therefore, no restitution was warranted.

The court upheld the defendant’s right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a)[10] and the right to practice any profession under Article 19(1)(g)[11] of the Constitution; the court emphasized that restrictions on freedom of speech must be reasonable and must not be judicially imposed where legislative provisions do not exist.

The court clarified that while Star India Pvt. Ltd. had exclusive broadcasting rights, these rights did not extend to prevent others from disseminating factual information, such as match updates, which are in the public domain.

The appeal was allowed, and the interim relief granted by the Single Judge was set aside. The defendants were permitted to continue disseminating match updates via SMS, as it did not amount to infringement of any proprietary rights claimed by Star India Pvt. Ltd.

Key legal issues discussed

1. Was Star India Pvt. Ltd.’s claim for rights beyond broadcasting precluded by Section 16 of the Copyright Act, 1957?

Yes

Section 16 of the Copyright Act, 1957[12] precludes any claims to rights not explicitly recognized under the Act, including those beyond broadcasting rights. The court held that the additional rights claimed by Star India Pvt. Ltd. were not provided for under the Copyright Act and were, therefore, precluded.

2. Did the Delhi High Court recognize the application of the “Hot News” doctrine under Indian law?

No

The Delhi High Court rejected the application of the “Hot News” doctrine, holding that it is a U.S.-based legal concept not recognized under Indian law. The court emphasized that the Copyright Act of 1957 does not extend to factual information, such as live match updates.

3. Could the defendants’ dissemination of live match updates be considered unfair competition or unjust enrichment?

No

The court found that the defendant’s actions did not constitute unfair competition or unjust enrichment. The information they disseminated was factual and in the public domain, which could not be restricted under the rights claimed by Star India Pvt. Ltd.

4. Does Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protect the defendants’ right to disseminate real-time match information?

Yes

The court upheld that the defendant’s right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a)[13] of the Constitution includes the right to disseminate factual information such as live match updates. Any restrictions on this right must be legislatively imposed, not judicially, where no such legislative provisions exist.

5. Were Star India Pvt. Ltd.’s exclusive broadcasting rights infringed by the defendants’ SMS services?

No

The court ruled that the defendants’ SMS services, providing live match updates, did not infringe upon Star India Pvt. Ltd.’s exclusive broadcasting rights, as these rights did not extend to restricting factual information in the public domain.

[1] 248 U.S. 215 39 S.Ct. 68 (1918)

[2] The Indian Constitution, art. 19(1)(a).

[3]Supra note 1.

[4] The Copyright Act, 1957, s.16.

[5] The Copyright Act, 1957, s. 2(y).

[6] Supra note 4.

[7] Supra note 1.

[8] 105 F. 3D 841,

[9] (2008) 1 SCC 1

[10] Supra note 2.

[11] The Indian Constitution, art. 19(1)(g).

[12] Supra note 4.

[13] Supra note 2.

Harish Khan

This is Harish Khan, Enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi. Currently, working as Legal Manager at Blackbull Law House. Pursued B.B.A. LL.B (Hons) Specialised in Business Laws from Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla [H.P]. completed LL.M Specialised in Business Laws from Amity University, Lucknow [U.P].