In a recent judgement, dated 13 June 2024, the single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, dismissed a plea filed by Pocket FM Private Limited (the Plaintiff) seeking a temporary injunction against Novi Digital Entertainment Private Limited (the Defendant) in the case of Pocket FM Private Limited v. Novi Digital Entertainment Private. The injunction sought to prevent Novi Digital from publishing or making available the alleged video adaptation of Pocket FM’s audio series “Yakshini” on their website or through other third-party media platforms.

A brief of the facts before we move to the analysis: 

Pocket FM, an audio series platform, filed a case against Novi Digital Entertainment Pvt Ltd, the parent company of Disney+ Hotstar, for copyright infringement regarding its audio series ‘Yakshini.’ Pocket FM had permitted Novi Digital to adapt the audio series into a video series and began discussions in 2022, which were ultimately unfruitful. There was sharing of proprietary information, but no non-disclosure agreement was signed despite Pocket FM’s insistence. Instead, a ‘release form’ was signed, absolving Novi Digital of any liability concerning the content shared during the negotiations.

In June 2024, Pocket FM discovered through advertisements and a YouTube trailer that Novi Digital planned to release a series allegedly identical to ‘Yakshini.’ Pocket FM holds the copyright to the original works and argues that the new series unlawfully adapts their storyline and characters, such as ‘Yakshini,’ ‘Aghori,’ and ‘Blue Sun.’ The trailer for this video series was launched on YouTube in the last week of May, the release was scheduled for June 14, 2024, and Pocket FM became aware of it in the first week of June. Pocket FM sought an interim injunction to stop the release of the series and to have the trailer removed.

Arguments by the Parties

Novi Digital also pointed out that the series in question had been advertised for release in May, and Pocket FM had waited until the last minute to file the suit. Furthermore, Novi Digital argued that the character Yakshini is a well-known mythological figure with abundant literature available on the subject, asserting that the idea for the series was not derived from Pocket FM’s audio series. They also noted that Pocket FM had not approached the court with clean hands, having already signed a release form which stated that they would not claim proprietary rights over the works submitted to Novi Digital.

An Insight into the DHC’s Analysis

The DHC’s analysis led to the establishment of a two-principle framework:

1. The Eleventh Hour is Too Late

Upon reviewing the facts and submissions, the DHC found the plaintiff’s claim that they became aware of the video series only in the first week of June 2024 to be implausible. Given that Pocket FM operates in the same business, it is not credible for them to claim unawareness of industry happenings until a few days before filing the suit. The suit was filed just a day before the scheduled release of the video series without providing concrete facts to establish a prima facie case of rights infringement. The DHC noted that despite Novi Digital advertising the series over a month earlier, Pocket FM waited until the last moment to approach the court. Granting an injunction under these circumstances would not be equitable. Nevertheless, the DHC also observed that if Pocket FM makes a case later, monetary compensation could be considered. 

2. What’s in a Name?

The DHC determined that while the idea behind both competing works might be similar, it is rooted in mythological stories, and the similarity of names alone cannot substantiate a case of infringement. Given that the character Yakshini is mythological and various works, movies, and books already exist about it, the similarity in name cannot be the sole criterion for infringement. There was no prima facie evidence of copyright violation regarding the expression of the idea as asserted by the plaintiff.

The DHC applied the two Copyright Violation Tests established in R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978):

1. First Test: There can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, plots, or historical or legendary facts. Copyright violation is confined to the form, manner, arrangement, and expression of the idea by the author of the copyrighted work.
2. Second Test: When the source is common, similarities are bound to occur. It must be determined whether these similarities are fundamental to the substantial aspects of the mode of expression. 

The DHC noted that a copyright violation will occur only if Novi Digital’s work is a literal imitation of the copyrighted work with minor variations. The safest test for determining copyright violation is to see if readers, spectators, or viewers, after engaging with both works, unmistakably conclude that the subsequent work is a copy of the original. If only the theme is similar but presented and treated differently, no copyright violation will arise.

Upon applying the established tests, the DHC observed that the plaintiff’s idea finds its roots in mythological stories, not only within India but also beyond its boundaries. The character Yakshini has existed for ages and is mentioned in various scriptures. The DHC noted that despite the similarity between the characters ‘Yakshini’ and ‘Aghori’ and the similar scenario descriptions, there is no basis to infer a copyright violation of the ‘expression of an idea’ by Novi Digital. 

The DHC has concluded that an interim injunction could not be granted at this stage. The matter is scheduled for the next hearing on July 10, 2024.

The DHC’s Decision Analysed

The DHC’s order is definitely a well-reasoned one, underscoring the fundamental principles of the idea-expression dichotomy by using the classical RG Anand test for infringement. Even though it is left to be seen what the case concludes like, the DHC has very rightly rejected the interim injunction based on well-grounded principles. Another interesting aspect to note is that the judge (a vacation judge), Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, has applied the three-factor interim injunction test in this IP case extremely well despite not having a background in adjudicating IPR cases at the DHC.

This case is a reminder of the classical limitations placed upon the exercise of copyright laws, especially regarding mythological figures. A 2023 DHC order of Justice Prathiba M Singh in the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust case also established that no copyright must be allowed on religious scriptures, but any adaptive works based on them can be copyrighted, also having pulled up the idea-expression dichotomy. In several previous cases, translations of Bhagwat Gita and The Quran have been able to enjoy protection as an expression, but never for the literature itself (discussed here). This case also reminds me distinctly of the restrictions on trademarking god’s names (discussed here), even if they are abbreviated! (discussed here).

In the extant case, while the court has sufficiently allowed creators to secure their distinctive interpretations and adaptations, it has astutely provided that they cannot claim exclusive rights over characters or concepts that are deeply rooted in our shared cultural and historical heritage. This judgement has ably walked the tightrope between safeguarding original creations and avoiding monopolization of shared cultural legacy.