- The Bench: Justice Ravindra Bhatt, Justice Nazmi Wajiri
- Date of Judgment: 30th August 2013
- Citation: 2013 MIPR 3 1
- Parties: Akuate Internet Services and Others (Appellants)
Star India Pvt Ltd (Respondents)
Facts -
Three interlocutory injunctions were filed to oppose the judgement of the Single Judge who granted an interim order restraining the dissemination of match information in the form of ball by ball score updates/ match alerts for a premium without prior obtainment of a license. The case was based on these rights that STAR claims to have gotten from BCCI as the exclusive media partners.
Contentions
Appellant
That there is no statute which creates a property right in “scores” as facts cannot be owned and therefore match information cannot be protected as a property right. The same was sought out with various English cases on ‘property rights. It was further submitted that an event is not conceivable as something which may have ownership. What is conceivable is the land or the statue. The Appellants finally held that the right claimed by the Respondents does not exist in rem (against the world) as property rights should be.
Respondent
It was submitted that they seek a unique property right and not a copyright or a mere property right stemming out of the negative obligations of the appellants. Further, there is a narrow scope of protection of rights in the dissemination of match information to the public. Exploitation of information by one entity does not mean that the other modes have been foreclosed. The denying of these equity rights to Star is paradoxical as per the counsel. It was also claimed that the case of the plaintiff was made on unjust enrichment.
Judgment
The Court found that the plaintiff does not have a claim for an injunction based on the principle of unjust enrichment or unfair competition. The plaintiffs claim on injunction on all accounts cannot be granted and are precluded statutorily, The Single Judge Bench judgement was also set aside in this nature.
