'Originality' Is Test To Claim Injunction For Copyright Infringement, Not Novelty: Delhi High Court Denies Relief To Fantasy Gaming App

The Delhi High Court has allowed an application filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC by the owner of fantasy sports app MYFAB11 (defendants) for vacation of the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted earlier in favour of the Plaintiffs.

After a meticulous analysis of judicial precedents, Justice Jyoti Singh emphasized that copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. Originality is a key criterion for copyright protection, meaning that the work should originate from the author.

"Originality though not novelty, is the underlying feature for claiming injunction predicated on copyright infringement and in view of the documents referred above, at least at this stage, the claim of originality asserted by the Plaintiffs is certainly dented. Therefore, this Court is unable to hold in favour of the Plaintiffs that their gaming application is an original expression of an idea, so as to grant proprietary rights or monopoly and injunct the Defendants from using the impugned application." 

The Court laid down certain principles of law, including:

(i) Only the expression of an idea, which is original, can be protected through copyright

(ii) In order to constitute copyright ‘infringement’, there must be ‘substantial’ similarity between competing works,

(iii) Competing works are not to be tested hypercritically, but by observations and impressions of an average reasonable reader and spectator,

(iv) Similarity of competing works does not by itself establish copyright infringement, if the similarity results from the fact that both works have the same subject/source, and

(v) Where idea and expression are linked such that the idea can be expressed in a limited manner, expression of the idea may not be protected through copyright as doing so would confer monopoly

The Plaintiffs operate a mobile app called "EXCHANGE22," which combines elements of a fantasy sports league with stock market trading for sports players. They claim that their app is the first of its kind for cricket, football, basketball, and kabaddi. The Plaintiffs sought an injunction against the Defendants, alleging copyright infringement among other claims.

Initially, the Plaintiffs had alleged copyright infringement by claiming that their ‘original’ trading/stock feature and GUI had been substantially copied by the Defendants. Primarily on these two counts, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted in their favour on April 13, 2022.

Subsequently, certain directions passed vide the injunction order was suspended. While the Plaintiffs approached the Court seeking an injunction, the Defendants approached seeking vacation of the order passed on April 13, 2022.

The Plaintiffs claimed that their mobile app is unique due to its combination of fantasy sports and stock market trading features. They registered a concept note, including various elements of their game, as a literary/dramatic work. They also asserted that their GUI is an artistic work, and they accused the Defendants of unfair competition and data theft.

The Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs' claims were based on false information and misrepresentation. They asserted that similar apps with stock trading features existed before the Plaintiffs' app. They contended that the GUI cannot be copyrighted and that the Plaintiffs have repeatedly changed their arguments during the case. The Defendants also challenged the claim of their app infringing on the Plaintiffs' registered concept note.

On the aspect of originality of trading/stock feature, the Court considered the existence of prior apps with stock market features similar to the Plaintiffs’ and took a prima facie view that the Plaintiffs’ claim of originality in relation to the feature and/or ‘concept note’ was factually incorrect.

“…this Court is unable to hold in favour of the Plaintiffs that their gaming application is an original expression of an idea”, the Court said.

The court examined the Plaintiffs' claim of originality regarding their concept note and GUI. It finds that the concept note does not appear to be original and that similar apps existed before the Plaintiffs' app. The court also questioned the originality of the GUI and the existence of substantial similarity with the Defendants' app. It highlighted the differences between the two apps and found no substantial copy by the Defendants.

It was further remarked that on those seeking equitable relief, the onus to disclose all material facts was higher at the ex-parte stage. As the Plaintiffs had failed to do so and rather misrepresented, they were not entitled to an injunction.

The court clarified that the underlying code of a software program is distinct from the GUI, and the case involves a dispute about whether the GUI can be considered an artistic work.

On the aspect of a substantial copy of GUI, the Court held there was no substantial similarity in Defendants’ User Interface and observed:

“Having carefully perused the comparative of the screenshots of the GUIs of the respective parties, this Court is unable to come to a conclusion even prima facie that there is a substantial copy by the Defendants. While it cannot be denied that there are a few similarities but those are insignificant and the dissimilarities outweigh the trivial similarities. … it is evident that the rival user interfaces have different colour schemes, graphics, texts, placement of elements, icons, bottom bar, etc.”

Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi with Advocates Sudeep Chatterjee, Tejveer Bhatia, Rohan Swarup and Kiratraj Sadana appeared for the Plaintiffs

Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, Advocate Ankur Sangal, Sucheta Roy, Asavari Jain and Raghu Sinha appeared for Defendant(s)

Case Title: Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Fantasy Sports MyFab11 Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 985

Click Here To Read/Download Order