Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

52. Mr. Khandekar has submitted that there is absolutely no 7 MANU/MH/23/2022 8 2016 SCC ONLINE BOM 2367 ia-22738-2023.doc case for copyright infringement made out as the protection sought is in respect of common plots, themes and other unprotectable elements; and on a proper comparison as a whole, the rival works are completely dissimilar. He has submitted an assessment of the case in the Plaint as culled out above (as well as the Defendants' Film, which the Court has had the opportunity to view) on the touchstone of the test laid down by the Supreme Court in R.G. Anand (supra), clearly shows that there is no actionable similarity whatsoever between the two - and the entire claim is based on an attempt to monopolise the theme / idea / concept of gender disguise: [1], the theme / idea / concept of someone facing financial challenges [2], the common / unoriginal idea of someone using situation 1 to solve situation 2. Commonalities, if any, flow in the broadest and most general sense from the choice of the common themes above.

89. Considering the settled law as laid down by the aforementioned Judgments, I prima facie find 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.

90. 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. These differences / dissimilarities have also been set out in the written submissions of Defendant No.1 at Pages 30 to 32 which are reproduced as under: