B.B.A., LL.B. (Hons.

) / Eighth Semester- January 2020

Synopsis
Intellectual Property Rights
Research Project Topic:

RG Anand vs Delux Films

Submitted By:
Vinayak Puri
Roll no.- 68
B.B.A., LL.B. (Hons.)
Fourth Year

Submitted To:
Mrs. Twinkle Maheshwary
Assistant Professor
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, NMIMS
INTRODUCTION
The appellant, R.G. Anand, an architect by profession and also a playwright, dramatist and
producer of several stage plays, wrote and produced a play called ‘Hum Hindustani’. The play
was based on the concept of provincialism. Aware of the interest of the plaintiff in filming the
play in view of its increasing popularity, the second defendant, Mr. Mohan Sehgal, contacted
plaintiff. However, after this discussion, the plaintiff received no further communication from
the defendant. The defendants started to make the film ‘New Delhi’, which, the plaintiff
gathered, was based on his play, “Hum Hindustani’. The defendant, however, assured him that
the movie was based on the concept of provincialism but that it was not based on the play.
After viewing the movie, the plaintiff filed a suit for infringement of his copyright in his play.
The plaintiff filed a suit at the District Court, his claims included damages, account of profits
and a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from exhibiting the movie.
The learned trial judge held that the movie ‘New Delhi’ made by the defendants did not infringe
the copyright of the plaintiff. On appeal, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi upheld the judgment
of the district court. An appeal against the judgment of the Delhi High Court was filed in the
Supreme Court.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

 That there can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, plots, or legendary facts
and violation of copyright in such cases is confined to the form, manner, and expression of
the idea by the author of the copyright work.
 That where the theme is the same but is presented and treated differently so that the
subsequent work becomes a completely new work, no question of copyright infringement
would arise.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 Whether the cinematographic film was colourable imitation/substantial or material copy of
the play?
 Whether a name of a person in a copyrightable subject matter can also be copyrighted?
 Whether the production, distribution and exhibition of the film ‘New Delhi’ made by the
defendants are in infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright in the play, ‘Hum Hindustani’?
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research methodology adopted in the project is mostly doctrinal, referring to books,
internet and articles of renowned authors.

CONCLUSION
The Court came to the conclusion that similarities were trivial and did not appear to be of
substantial nature. The appellant failed to prove that the defendants committed colourable
imitation of the play. The theme of provincialism may have been the same, the latter work had
been presented and treated differently and that though there were some similarities appearing
in the two works, there were also material and broad dissimilarities which negated the intention
to copy the original and the coincidences appearing in the two works were clearly incidental.
Thus, there was no infringement of a copyright in this case.