Case Study: Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd.

By Harish Khan 11 Minutes Read

“While the idea or concept itself is not protected under copyright law, the expression of that idea, if it is original and substantial, can be protected.”

Citation: 2003 (5) BOM CR 404

Date of Judgment: 27^th March, 2003

Court: High Court of Bombay      

Bench: A.P. Shah (J), D.K. Deshmukh (J)

Facts

• The plaintiff, Zee Television Ltd., developed an original concept for a television serial titled “Krishan Kanhaiyya,” which included detailed concept notes, character sketches, plots, and episodes. This concept was registered with the Film Writer’s Association and discussed with the defendant, Sundial Communication Pvt. Ltd., for production and broadcast. 
• When the defendant did not respond positively, the plaintiff decided to offer the script to Sony Entertainment Television. However, the plaintiff later discovered that the defendant was producing a serial based on the same concept titled “Kanhaiyya” and had begun promoting it. 
• Consequently, Sony refused to sign the contract with the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit for breach of confidence and copyright infringement, while the defendant argued that their production was different and that they had received a similar script from another source.

Decision of the Bombay High Court

The court held that there was a relationship of confidentiality between the parties, even though there was no written agreement, and that the defendant had violated this confidentiality. On the issue of copyright infringement, the court applied the test from the R.G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films & Ors.[1] and found that the defendant had indeed infringed the plaintiff’s copyright. The court noted substantial similarities between the two works, leading to the conclusion that there was unlawful copying of the plaintiff’s original work. However, the court emphasized that it was not the concept of Lord Krishna that was protected, but rather the substantial similarity in the expression of that concept.

Key legal issues discussed       

1. Whether a relationship of confidentiality existed between the plaintiff and the defendant?

Yes

The court found that there was indeed a confidential relationship between the parties. This was inferred from the fact that the plaintiff had shared detailed written concept notes, character sketches, and plots with the defendant for potential production. The relationship was considered confidential because the plaintiff had entrusted this material to the defendant with an expectation of privacy, even though there was no formal contract. The defendant’s subsequent use of the concept was deemed a violation of this confidentiality. However, the court noted that the registration of the concept with the Film Writers Association complicated the matter, as it was unclear whether the association kept the registered material confidential. If the association allowed members to examine the material, the principle of confidentiality might not apply as strongly. Nonetheless, the court still recognized a breach of confidence based on the defendant’s actions.

2. Whether the defendant’s serial “Kanhaiyya” constitutes copyright infringement of the plaintiff’s original concept for “Krishan Kanhaiyya.”

Yes

The court applied the test for copyright infringement established in the case of R.G. Anand v. Delux Films. This test considers whether the defendant’s work is a substantial reproduction of the plaintiff’s work, focusing on the overall impression that an average viewer would have. The court found “striking similarities” between the two works, suggesting that these similarities were not coincidental. The court emphasized that the key elements of the plaintiff’s concept such as the portrayal of Lord Krishna in child form were central to both works. It reasoned that if this core concept was removed from the defendant’s serial, the program would lose its essence, indicating substantial copying of the plaintiff’s work.

The observation of the court is worth quoting:  “Having considered two works involved in this case not hypocritically and with meticulous scrutiny but the observation and impressions of the average viewer, we find that striking similarities in two works cannot in the light of the materials placed on record be said to constitute mere chance. We feel that the only inference that can be drawn from the material available on record is unlawful copying of the plaintiff’s original work. The …. counsel for the plaintiff submitted and not without sufficient force that if the concept of Lord Krishna in child form is removed from the serial of the defendants, their programme would become meaningless. In order to find out similarity in the two concepts, what is to be seen in the substance, the foundation, the kernel and the test as to whether the reproduction is substantial is to see if the rest can stand without it. If it cannot, then even if many dissimilarities exist in the rest, it would nevertheless be a substantial reproduction liable to be restrained… 

The court thus concluded that the defendant had unlawfully copied the plaintiff’s original work, amounting to copyright infringement.

3. Whether the plaintiff’s concept or idea was protected under copyright law.

No

The court acknowledged the legal principle that ideas or concepts themselves are not protected under copyright law, only the specific expression of those ideas. This principle, drawn from the R.G. Anand case, was critical in determining the extent of protection afforded to the plaintiff’s work. However, the court noted that while ideas are not protected, the manner in which those ideas are expressed can be protected if it involves significant creative input. In this case, the court observed that although both works shared a similar concept, the substantial similarities in their expression particularly in how the concept of Lord Krishna as a child was presented indicated that the defendant’s work was a substantial reproduction of the plaintiff’s original expression. The court’s emphasis on the similarity in expression rather than just the concept itself led to the conclusion that the plaintiff’s copyright was infringed.

4. Whether economic considerations influenced the court’s decision regarding the protection of the concept.

Yes

The court appeared to be influenced by the economic impact of the defendant’s actions on the plaintiff. The plaintiff had registered the concept and was in discussions with Sony Entertainment Television, but these negotiations fell through when Sony learned that the defendant was producing a similar serial. This economic loss to the plaintiff was considered in the court’s decision. The court referred to the rationale applied by the Delhi High Court in Anil Gupta v. Kunal Das Gupta[2], where economic considerations played a role in determining the protection of creative works. Although the court adhered to the principle that ideas are not protected by copyright, it also recognized that the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s concept could have a significant economic impact on the plaintiff, further justifying the finding of infringement.

5. Did the defendant’s production infringe upon the plaintiff’s copyright in the television serial concept?

Yes

The court determined that there was copyright infringement, as there were substantial similarities between the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s works, which could not be dismissed as coincidental.

6. Is the form in which an idea is expressed more critical than the idea itself in determining copyright infringement?

Yes

The court emphasized that “while the concept is not protected, the form in which it is expressed is crucial in determining whether there has been copyright infringement.”

[1] AIR 1978 SC 1613.

[2] (2002) 25 PTC 1.

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].