CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

SCHOOL OF LAW &GOVERNANCE.

“Case Analysis of Anil Gupta And Anr. vs Kunal Dasgupta And Ors. AIR
2002 Delhi 379”

Submitted to:
Dr. Digvijay Singh
Associate Professor
Submitted By: School of Law and Governance

Aniket Ranjan
CUSB1613125003
9th Semester (BA.LLB Hons.)

1|Page
Acknowledgement.

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my professor Dr,

2|Page
Contents

1. Introduction------------------------------------------------------04

2. Facts of the Case-------------------------------------------------05-07

4. Statutory Provisions in the case-------------------------------07

5. Issues raised in the Case----------------------------------------07

6. Contentions put forward in the case---------------------------07

8. Judgement of the Case-------------------------------------------08

9. Conclusion---------------------------------------------------------08

3|Page
Introduction:

In today’s competitive world, what sets businesses apart from the rest are their novel and
exceptional ideas and thus, it is extremely important that there should be free flow of ideas
that are capable of commercial exploitation in order to keep businesses going. While it is
pertinent to share ideas to bring the change entrepreneurs foresee, many organisations,
especially start-ups possessing novel ideas, based on which their businesses are built, are
worried about the loss of competitive edge when their business ideas come in to the public
domain for fear of plagiarism and idea theft. in the case of Anil Gupta V. Kunal
Dasgupta  AIR (2002) Delhi 379, commonly known as the Swayamvar Case, the Delhi
High Court laid down that an idea per se has no copyright. But if the idea is developed into a
concept fledged with adequate details, then the same is capable of registration under the Act
and that the Laws must ensure that persons who create an idea / concept or theme which is
original are rewarded for their labour.

4|Page
Name of the Case: Anil Gupta And Anr. vs Kunal Dasgupta And Ors. AIR 2002 Delhi
379

Facts of the Case:

Plaintiff – a Media Consultant

Defendant – a Television Production House

In this case the Plaintiff conceived the idea of producing a reality television programme
containing the process of matchmaking to the point of actual spouse selection in which real
everyday ordinary people would participate before a Television audience. The Plaintiff had
devised a novel concept for a TV show in which it would be the prerogative of a woman to
select a groom from a variety of suitors. They had even decided to name the concept
‘Swayamvar’, knowing well that a large number of people would associate the name with the
idea of a woman selecting a groom in a public forum and that it would create the necessary
instantaneous recall and recognition of the mythological Swayamvar, giving the programme a
head-start.

The aforesaid concept titled ‘Swayamvar’ was disclosed in early 1997 by the Plaintiff to his
wife and one Mr. K Chandrasehkar. The Plaintiff then applied for registration after
developing the concept as a piece of literary work under the Copyright Act. The work was
registered and a certificate was duly issued in favour of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff put forth that in May/June of 1998, they spoke to Defendant No. 1 and gave a 1-
page concept note of ‘Swayamvar’ to the Defendant, who gave an enthusiastic response to
the idea. Defendant No. 1 further asked the Plaintiff to give a detailed presentation. Further,
the Plaintiff contended that the concept note given by the Plaintiff to the Defendant at said
meeting was a disclosure in utmost confidence which is the usual practice in the industry.

The second meeting took place in Defendant No. 1’s office with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff
then described the concept of Swayamvar. It has been averred in the Plaint that the Plaintiff
informed the Defendant that he had registered his concept and the same was copyrighted. On
the same day, the Plaintiff further elaborated the programme structure and format, divided
into segments for easy implementation.

It is further the case of the Plaintiff that another meeting was fixed at the Defendants’ office.
In said meeting, the Plaintiff handed over to the Defendant, a letter which contained a

5|Page
proposal for five programmes including ‘Swayamvar’. This letter also accompanied a brief
concept note containing the essential details and proposed format of ‘Swayamvar’. After said
meeting, the Defendants asked the Plaintiff to give a detailed presentation at the earliest.

Another meeting was held between the Defendants and the wife and son of the Plaintiff,
where a PowerPoint Presentation was given to the large team of executive of the Defendants.
The printed version of the presentation and an internal discussion document which had been
prepared by the Plaintiff’s said representatives, was also handed to the Defendants after the
presentation.

Subsequently, the Plaintiff saw an article titled ‘Camera, Lights, Shehnai! SONY TV to play
Matchmaker’. Said article informed that Defendant No. 2 was due to launch a big budget
reality TV show which would provide a platform for matchmaking. The report indicated that
it would be like a Swayamvar or a marriage bureau on television.

The Plaintiff presented that this article and others appearing subsequently in newspapers as
well as the internet, uncannily replicated the information confidentially disclosed by him to
the Defendants during their meetings and presentations. When he learned that Defendant No.
2 was going to launch a reality TV show ‘Shubh Vivah’, he wrote a letter to the Defendant to
clarify any misconception of the source of the idea and then a legal notice was sent. The
Defendant replied to said legal notice stating that what they were making was not a copy of
Swayamvar and also took the stand that they had made the Plaintiff aware in their meetings
that the Defendants were in the process of producing a programme based on the same theme.

Now clearly miffed, the Plaintiff contended that a copyright was held by him for a creative,
unique and novel reality TV programme that conducts real life matchmaking by giving
certain women the opportunity, with mediation by an anchor person, to choose a husband of
their choice from a chosen few suitors, in the presence of parents, in the studio. The Plaintiff
sought copyright protection in the developed production of his concept and the format of his
unique matchmaking show, which was then brought to the attention of the Defendants
through various meetings held between them.

The Plaintiff contended that Copyright Infringement was afoot, in the guise of the Defendants
taking a concept developed by the Plaintiffs and subsequently reproducing the same in the
format of a TV show proposed by the Plaintiff, only titled differently as Shubh Vivah.
Further, when the Plaintiff had submitted its programme proposal for consideration, the same
was done on the understanding that the broadcaster will either accept it or reject it. Therefore,

6|Page
the Defendants, by using said information imparted to it in strict confidence by the Plaintiff,
breached the confidence reposed in them by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed interim relief on
two grounds:

 Breach of Confidence

 Permissibility of registration of idea developed in a concept.

Statutory Provisions in the Case:

 Section 13 of the Copyright Act,1957.

Issues Raised in the Case:

1. Whether the ideas are protected in the instant case?

Contentions put forward in the Case:

Plaintiff contended that the subsequent reproduction of the same in the format of proposed
TV show by the defendant titled “Subh Vivah” amounts to infringement of Plaintiff’s
copyright, which inflicted huge loss and damaged the commercial potential of the plaintiff.

Defendant contended that the concept of SWAYAMVAR was in public domain. Whatever
narrated to them was not confidential, and the draft given to them was vague and rough. No
copyright exists in subject matter or theme of historical or mythological belief. iv. There were
other shows as well prior to 1996 outside India, for Ex: “Mr. & Mrs.”, “Love at first Sight”
and “Blind date”.

Judgement of the Case:

After considering the contentions of both parties, the Court held that when a concept note as
well as presentations were admitted to have been received by the Defendants, it cannot be
said that they were under no obligation to maintain confidence. The argument of the

7|Page
Defendants that once the concept was registered under the Copyright Act the same came
under public domain, cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law. As a matter of fact, when
a concept is registered, the same is protected from the public domain. Therefore, the
Defendants could not be permitted to launch its TV programme if the same was based on the
concept of Swayamvar, conceived by the Plaintiff. The Court further opined that it would
have been easier for this Court if the salient features of Shubh Vivah had been disclosed by
the Defendants before this Court.

What had been disclosed before this Court by the Defendants was that they were not
providing a platform to young woman to choose a spouse from a pool of potential suitors,
there was no involvement of parents either of the girls or of the suitors, there was also no a
reward after the courtship concluded nor were there gifts given to the espoused couple. What
is important to note is that Shubh Vivah is based on the thrill of matchmaking. The concept
of spouse selection in any form as a reality TV show could not be permitted as that had been
conceived by the Plaintiff at the first instance. To depict matchmaking in the form of a reality
TV show or spouse selection, was the theme of the concept. How it is done, who plays
the anchor person, whether gifts were given or not, may be the various elements which may
differ but if Shubh Vivah was based on the matchmaking process to be televised as a real-life
drama, the Defendants could not reap the fruits of labour put in by the Plaintiff. The Courts,
satisfied that the Plaintiff had prima facie proved that the Defendants were aware of the
concept of Swayamvar, and hence had infringed his copyright, granted the injunction.

Conclusion:

The case dealt with permissibility of registration of an idea developed in a concept. It was
held that the idea per se had no copyright, but in case the same was developed into a concept
fledged with adequate details, the same could be registered under the provisions of the
Copyright Act, 1957 – Further, in case the confidential information was used with certain
variations, the same would amount to violation of copyright under Section 51 and 55 of the
Act.

The case discussed the scope of injunction to restrain the Breach of Confidence of the theme,
concept or scripts under Section 51 and 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957. It was held that
interlocutory injunction could be issued to restrain the Breach of Confidence, else the same
could be catastrophic for the television industry.

8|Page