Copyright Infringement:From Script to Screen
Introduction: The case of Ashim Kumar Bagchi versus Balaji Telefilms Limited and Others revolves around allegations of copyright infringement and breach of confidence in the realm of cinematic storytelling. The plaintiff, an aspiring scriptwriter, claimed that his original literary work, a script initially titled "Kal Kisne Dekha" and later re-registered as "The Show Must Go On," was unlawfully copied by the defendants in producing the film "Dream Girl 2." This dispute highlights the delicate balance in intellectual property law between protecting original expressions and allowing creative freedom in common themes like gender disguise comedies. The Bombay High Court, in its commercial division, examined whether the plaintiff's script merited copyright protection and if the defendants' film constituted an infringement or misuse of confidential information. The judgment underscores the principles governing copyright in literary works, emphasizing that ideas, themes, and stock elements are not protectable, and sets a precedent for rigorous scrutiny in interim applications seeking injunctions against film exploitation.
Factual Background: The plaintiff, Ashim Kumar Bagchi, developed a script in 2007 centered on a gender swap comedy where a male protagonist disguises himself as a female actress to overcome financial hardships and break into the film industry. The script, registered with the Film Writers' Association under number 127297, featured a protagonist facing debts, encouraged by a friend to adopt a female persona, and navigating comedic situations involving a smitten producer without revealing his identity. The plaintiff shared the script's synopsis and concept with employees of Defendant No. 1 (Balaji Telefilms Ltd.) via emails in 2009 and 2013, and narrated it over a phone call to Defendant No. 4 (a comedy writer) in 2012, allegedly under conditions of confidence to explore production opportunities. These efforts did not materialize into a film. In 2023, Defendant No. 1 released "Dream Girl 2," a sequel to their 2019 film "Dream Girl," directed and co-written by Defendant No. 4 and Defendant No. 5. The film depicted a male lead disguising as a woman to earn money at a dance bar to meet his prospective father-in-law's financial ultimatum for marriage, leading to comedic entanglements. The plaintiff, upon viewing the trailer, issued a cease-and-desist notice on August 4, 2023, alleging infringement, to which the defendants responded by denying similarities and claiming the plaintiff's work infringed theirs. The defendants maintained that "Dream Girl 2" was independently developed from a synopsis registered by Defendant No. 5 in 2021, with agreements assigning rights to Defendant No. 1.
Procedural Background:The plaintiff filed a commercial intellectual property suit on August 18, 2023, seeking an injunction against the exploitation of "Dream Girl 2," scheduled for release on August 25, 2023. An interim application was moved for urgent relief based on the trailer, but the court, on August 22, 2023, declined to restrain the release without affording the defendants an opportunity to respond, noting the plaintiff's eleventh-hour approach despite prior knowledge of the release date. The film was subsequently released in theaters and exploited across mediums. Defendant No. 1 filed an affidavit in reply on August 31, 2023, followed by the plaintiff's rejoinder on October 10, 2023, and Defendant No. 1's sur-rejoinder on November 29, 2023. Defendant No. 5 also filed replies denying access and infringement. The matter was argued at length, reserved for orders on December 16, 2024, after parties filed written submissions, and pronounced on August 6, 2025. During proceedings, the court viewed the film and perused the script, while the plaintiff highlighted a prior suit by Defendant No. 5 against Defendants Nos. 1 and 4 over credits, which was settled by consent terms unrelated to the content dispute.
Core Dispute:At the heart of the dispute was whether "Dream Girl 2" infringed the plaintiff's copyright in his script by copying its expression, arrangement of scenes, character development, and comedic situations, or breached confidence by misusing information shared confidentially. The plaintiff argued that his script's originality lay in the detailed narrative of a debt-ridden protagonist adopting a female persona for film success, facing romantic and comedic perils, and that substantial similarities existed in themes, plots, and sequences. He contended access was established through shares with Defendants Nos. 1 and 4, and that Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 colluded, as evidenced by inconsistencies in their authorship claims and a blank annexure in their writer agreement. The defendants countered that no copyright subsisted in unoriginal elements like gender disguise or financial hardship themes, which were stock scenarios or scènes à faire, and that the works were dissimilar when viewed holistically—the plaintiff's script was Bollywood-centric, while their film focused on small-town romance and family dynamics without film industry involvement. They denied access, particularly for Defendant No. 5, and argued the plaintiff failed to precisely identify confidential information or prove misuse, rendering the claims untenable.
Discussion on Judgments:The parties extensively relied on precedents to support their positions on copyright infringement, breach of confidence, and costs. The plaintiff cited Daman Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (1985) 2 SCC 670, at paragraph 13, to argue that pleadings not advanced in arguments need not be considered, emphasizing Defendant No. 4's non-appearance as acceptance of his case. He also referenced Akashaditya Vs. Ashutosh Gowarikar, 2016 SCC Online Bom 527, and Dashrath Rathod Vs. Foxstar, Order dated 21st March 2017 passed in NML/693/2017, to distinguish his case from those warranting costs, noting no suppression or insistence on ad-interim relief. Defendant No. 1 invoked R.G. Anand v. M/s. Delux Films & Ors., (1978) 4 SCC 118, at paragraph 46, as the foundational test for infringement, stressing no protection for ideas, themes, or plots unless substantial copying of expression occurs, and applied it to show dissimilarities negated piracy. Mansoob Haider Vs. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., [2014 SCC Online BOM 652], at paragraphs 18 to 30 and 38, was used to argue against monopoly over common themes like gender disguise. Shivani Tibrewala Vs. Rajat Mukherjee & Ors., AIR 2020 BOM 32, at paragraphs 21, 23, 26, and 28, supported rejecting dissected comparisons and focusing on unique story elements. Gaurav K. Dave Vs. MX Media & Entertainment Private Limited & Ors., MANU/MH/23/2022, at paragraphs 16, 17, 19, and 20, distinguished actionable from mere similarity. Amit R. Kalyanaraman Vs. Gurfateh Films, 2016 SCC ONLINE BOM 2367, at paragraphs 4 to 6, highlighted no infringement in sequel-like works with common flows. For breach of confidence, Defendant No. 1 relied on Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Gajendra Singh & Ors. (Beyond Dreams case), 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 427, at paragraphs 8, 9, and 11, requiring precise identification of confidential, original information not in public domain. Tarun Wadhwa v. Saregama India Ltd. & Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 13993, at paragraphs 14, 15, 20, 21, 25, 27, 28, 35, 37, and 40 to 44, emphasized fatal defects in vague pleadings. Dashrath B. Rathod v. Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2018) 1 Mh.LJ. 474, at paragraphs 32 to 37, and Akashaditya Harishchandra Lama v. Ashutosh Gowarikar & Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 5207, at paragraph 71, justified costs in frivolous claims. Defendant No. 5 echoed these, adding DC Comics Vs. Mark Towle, 989 F. Supp. 2d 948 (C.D. Cal. 2013), at pages 12, 14, and 15, for unprotectable stock characters; Bikramjeet Singh Bhullar V. Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8212, at paragraphs 36, 49, and 50, for no infringement despite access; and Inception Media LLP Vs. Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 5046, at paragraphs 25, 35, 39, 40, and 42, reinforcing the sequential test for confidence claims.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge: Justice R.I. Chagla meticulously analyzed the plaintiff's claims by first dissecting the pleadings, finding the script's alleged originality rested on unprotectable elements like gender disguise and financial woes, which were common themes evident from prior works such as "Mrs. Doubtfire." He rejected the plaintiff's dissected comparison tables as impermissible under settled law, viewing the works holistically to identify stark dissimilarities: the plaintiff's Mumbai-based Bollywood narrative versus the defendants' Mathura-set romantic comedy without film industry ties. Applying R.G. Anand's test, he concluded no actionable similarity existed, as commonalities flowed from unprotected idées or scènes à faire. On access, he deemed the plaintiff's evidence tenuous, with no cogent proof against Defendant No. 5, rendering it academic given the works' differences. For breach of confidence, he applied the Beyond Dreams framework as elaborated in Tarun Wadhwa and Inception Media, faulting the plaintiff for failing to precisely identify confidential, original information or prove misuse. He dismissed reliance on Defendant No. 5's prior credit suit as irrelevant, noting its settlement pertained only to attribution. Balancing equities, he highlighted the plaintiff's persistence despite viewing the film and procedural delays, justifying costs under the Commercial Courts Act for consuming court resources on a meritless claim.
Final Decision:The court dismissed the interim application, refusing the injunction against exploiting "Dream Girl 2." It held no prima facie case for copyright infringement or breach of confidence, awarding costs of Rs. 2 lakhs (Rs. 1 lakh each to Defendants Nos. 1 and 5) payable by the plaintiff within four weeks.
Law Settled in This Case:This judgment reinforces that copyright protects expressions, not ideas, themes, plots, or stock elements like gender disguise comedies, and infringement requires substantial copying of protectable aspects, tested holistically rather than through dissected comparisons. It clarifies that breach of confidence claims demand precise identification of confidential, original information not in public domain, imparted under confidentiality, and proven unauthorized use—all elements being cumulative. In commercial IP suits, frivolous claims persisting post-release warrant costs to deter resource wastage, aligning with the Commercial Courts Act's regime.
Case Title: Ashim Kumar Bagchi Vs Balaji Telefilms Limited and Ors.
Date of Order: 06th August, 2025
Case Number: Comm IP Suit No. 322 of 2023
Name of Court: Bombay High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: R.I. Chagla J.
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
