STAR INDIA PVT. LTD Vs. PIYUSH AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (i) The present judgment will result in disposal of three suits, namely, CS(OS) 2722/2012, CS(OS) 3232/2012 and CS(OS) 2780/2012. The only contention which is urged on behalf of the plaintiff (who is the same in all the three suits) is that when Board of Control for Cricket in India (hereinafter referred to as "BCCI") organizes cricket matches, then, any and every information pertaining to such cricket matches including the right to create and broadcast Short Message Services (SMSs) based on the said information emanating from the cricket match; and which value added services are being provided by the defendants in the suits; is the exclusive right/property of the plaintiff and therefore the engaging by the defendant in such activities for commercial benefit is illegal. The plaintiff claims exclusive rights of providing such value added services through SMSs on the basis of the agreement dated 10.08.2012 entered into between it and the BCCI, and which agreement gives exclusivity to the plaintiff qua such information and rights.

(2.) (i) The BCCI which is a defendant in this case supports the plaintiff and states that the suits have to be decreed. The BCCI states that it has entered into an agreement dated 10.8.2012 with the plaintiff whereby plaintiff has the rights as claimed. The BCCI reaffirms its rights and those of the plaintiff in terms of the agreement dated 10.8.2012.

(3.) The issue to be decided and the relevant facts are in a narrow compass and are as under: The plaintiff states that in terms of its agreement dated 10.08.2012 with the BCCI, the plaintiff has exclusive media rights. The media rights and other related rights are specified at internal page 9 of the agreement and which clauses of the agreement are reproduced in the later part of this judgment. It is also urged that with respect to such media rights, plaintiff has exclusivity by virtue of para 2 (and its various sub-paras) of the agreement dated 10.08.2012, more particularly paras 2.2 and 2.3. It is argued that such rights of the plaintiff exist independently of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") i.e the copyrights provided under the Act are not exhaustive of the rights which can be created in respect of an event/live event. It is argued that the plaintiff therefore not only has rights with respect to the first right of broadcast by diffusion of information to the public, but also the plaintiff continues to even subsequently have rights to the information which is broadcasted, although, the information comes into the public domain. It is argued that for a period of 72 hours as provided in the agreement dated 10.08.2012 the media rights i.e the right to all information emanating from the event, belong exclusively to the plaintiff.