STAR INDIA PVT. LTD Vs. PIYUSH AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, Star India Pvt. Ltd. (STAR), filed three cases against Piyush Agarwal (Cricbuzz), Idea Cellular (IDEA) and OnMobile Global Ltd. (ONMOBILE). Though the Board of Cricket Control in India (BCCI) has been arrayed as the common defendant in all the three cases, it is supporting the plaintiff, claiming paramount rights over all information emanating from a cricketing event by virtue of organising and promoting the sport of cricket in India. The common case of STAR and BCCI is that the latter, by an agreement dated 10. 08. 2012, has assigned a "bouquet of rights? exclusively to STAR. Two of such rights, are regarding "Mobile Rights? and "Mobile Activation Rights?. The plaintiff has sought an interim injunction against the defendants alleging that the latter has violated those rights, which as per the agreement with BCCI, were exclusively assigned to the plaintiff.

(2.) The defendants have disputed these claims of STAR inter alia that that there is no such right as claimed by the plaintiff. In the absence of a legal right, the same cannot be enforced and no relief as prayed by the plaintiff maybe granted making the suit liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for the lack of a cause of action. A brief summary of the contentions of both parties is as follows.

(3.) STAR and BCCI contend that the dissemination of match information through live score cards, match updates and score alerts via Short Messaging Service (SMS)/Mobile Value Added Services (MVAS), by the contesting defendants constitutes the tort of "unfair competition? and "commercial misappropriation/unjust commercial enrichment?. It is their case that the plaintiff spent a sum of Rs. 3581 Crores ( Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty One Crores only) to successfully bid for the Media Rights Agreement dated 10. 08. 2012; whereas, the defendants have neither participated in the bid nor acquired any license from the plaintiff to disseminate any match information. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff is seeking a remedy in these suits under common law, de hors the Copyright Act, 1957.