No Monopoly Over Themes: Bombay HC Rejects Copyright Claim on Dream Girl 2
In the case of Ashim Kumar Bagchi vs Balaji Telefilms Ltd. & Ors., the Bombay High Court addressed important questions about copyright infringement and breach of confidence. The plaintiff, Ashim Kumar Bagchi, approached the Court, claiming that the Bollywood film "Dream Girl 2", produced by Balaji Telefilms, had unlawfully appropriated his script, titled "Kal Kisne Dekha", which was later renamed "The Show Must Go On".
The plaintiff argued that his script was an original work under the Copyright Act of 1957 and had been registered with the Film Writers' Association in 2007. The plaintiff stated that the story focused on a gender-swap comedy, where the protagonist, a male, dons the persona and performance of a female and tackles various comedic situations that may expose his identity, resulting in humorous and dramatic situations that culminate in a clear climax. He emphasised that his claim was not about owning the general idea of gender disguise. Instead, it centred on the unique expression, arrangement of scenes, character profiles, and the storyline's development, which he believed had been copied in Dream Girl 2.
The plaintiff also stated that he had shared his script with industry professionals, including employees of Balaji Telefilms and a comedy writer who later worked on the film, under conditions of confidentiality. The plaintiff presented emails from 2009 and 2013, along with a narration from 2012, to show that the defendants had access to his work. Based on this, the plaintiff claimed not only copyright infringement but also breach of confidence, arguing that his work was misused to create the contested film with only minor changes.
However, the defendants denied the allegations and claimed that the plaintiff was attempting to protect unprotectable elements, such as themes, stock characters, and common situations. The defendants cited past works, such as the Hollywood classic Mrs. Doubtfire (1993), to argue that the theme of gender swap was not new and not eligible for copyright. Defendants asserted that their film Dream Girl 2 was fundamentally different in its approach and storyline: the lead character dresses as a woman not to enter the film industry, as in the plaintiff's script, but to earn money to impress his future father-in-law and win his girlfriend's hand. The defendants argued that the plaintiff had mischaracterised the film to exaggerate the similarities.
Defendant No. 5, Raaj Shaandilyaa, who directed the film Dream Girl 2, claimed to be the author of the film's story. He produced a registration certificate from the Screenwriters' Association dated July 15, 2021, showing the synopsis of Dream Girl 2 under his name. He firmly denied ever seeing Bagchi's work. Shaandilyaa also pointed out inconsistencies in the plaintiff's argument, especially the sudden claim in subsequent pleadings that the script's idea came from an incident at the 1997 Miss Australia pageant, which the plaintiff alleged was won by a disguised man. However, this was proven to be false, as Laura Csortan, a female contestant, won the title. Such contradictions, according to the defendants, raised questions about the reliability of the plaintiff's case.
The Court evaluated the case within established copyright principles, particularly the Supreme Court's ruling in R.G. Anand vs Deluxe Films (1978), which stated that copyright exists not in ideas, themes, or concepts but in their original expression. The Court noted that general themes, such as gender disguise, mistaken identities, or financial struggles, were unprotectable elements forming part of the creative commons. Therefore, any infringement claim must demonstrate significant similarity in protectable expression, rather than depend on broad themes.
Applying this standard, the Court found that the works were fundamentally different. The plaintiff's script focused on a character trying to break into the film industry, while the film Dream Girl 2 dealt with a personal and financial problem unrelated to that field. The Court stated that the plaintiff has failed to make out a case for copyright protection of its script, particularly since protection is being sought for common plots, themes and other unprotectable elements. Moreover, a comparison of the plaintiff's script with the Defendants' film reveals that the rival works are dissimilar. The claimed similarities were either generic or necessary to the plot, and thus insufficient to be considered actual copying.
As for the breach of confidence, the Court relied on the principles established in Beyond Dreams Entertainment vs Zee Entertainment and Tarun Wadhwa vs Saregama India Ltd. & Anr., which require the plaintiff to clearly identify the confidential information, demonstrate its originality, and establish the circumstances of confidentiality and unauthorised use by the defendant. However, the plaintiff's submissions were unclear and did not accurately specify which confidential elements had been misused. Additionally, the inconsistencies in his story, particularly the fabricated pageant account, undermined his credibility.
In conclusion, the Court was of the view that the plaintiffs' claim for breach of confidence was not sustainable. The Bombay High Court dismissed the plaintiff's request for an injunction and did not stop the defendants from using Dream Girl 2. The ruling provides several important lessons for the creative industries. Copyright protection focuses on the originality of expression, not on general themes or common devices. Courts will protect against attempts to monopolise broad ideas that belong to cultural and cinematic heritage. Furthermore, claims of breach of confidence must be clearly stated and supported by credible evidence. The case emphasises the need to balance protecting authentic creators while ensuring that creativity is not hindered by baseless monopolistic claims, setting another benchmark in Indian law concerning copyright disputes in script-to-screen matters.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
