Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd. 2003 SCC OnLine Bom 344

Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd., 2003 SCC OnLine Bom 344

FACTS:

• The Plaintiffs (Sundial Communications) were involved in video making, multimedia, and serial productions and created new and innovative concepts. The same were also registered under the Film Writers Association and the Indian Motion Pictures. In 2002, the plaintiffs came up with a concept titled “kanhaiyaa”, in relation to a production on Lord Krishna. The name was later changed to “Krish Kanhaiyaa”, and a detailed brief of thew notes, recordings, character sketches and plots was sent to the Defendants (ZEE Telefilms Ltd.) for a collaboration.
• After a meeting between the Plaintiff and Defendant, when no confirmation was sent by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs approached Sony Entertainment Television with the same, who refused to proceed with a collaboration by informing the Plaintiffs of a similar production being taken place by the Defendants.
• The Plaintiff filed a suit on the basis on misusing confidential information and infringement of copyrights. The matter was heard in the High Court of Bombay.

• The Principle of Confidentiality, ensued in Article 21 of the Constitution under the Right to Privacy, and under the Information Technology Act 2000, states that when information is disclosed to a third party or used without the data owner's permission, he is entitled to take legal action on the account of loss or damage incurred as a result of the same.
• Section 51 and Section 13 of the Copyright Act 1957 also state that an idea is not protected by a copyright, it only becomes a copyright when the idea is embodied in a tangible form. 

ISSUE:

• Whether there are similarities between the two contended marks and do they create confusion
• Whether the Defendant's mark violates the copyright of the Plaintiff?
• Whether there was a misuse of confidential information or not?

HELD:

• The High Court of Bombay held that the prayed injunction could be granted since there was a breach of confidentiality, and it rejected all contentions by the Defendants and held that the idea created by the Plaintiffs was novel.
• The Court pointed out the stark difference between the breach of confidence and the law of copyright and stated that a breach of confidence does not only extend to the work but also to the various persons to whom the information is given.
• The court observed Dada in law did not recognise property rights in abstract ideas nor was an idea protected by a copyright. It became copyrighted work only when it was given embodiment in a tangible form. But where the plaintiff had developed an idea into various concept notes character sketches, detailed plot of episodes they would become subject matter of copyright protection.