The mere use of certain common motifs and themes does not give the Plaintiff rights against the rival work. The Plaintiff failed to establish access to his work by the Defendants and did not demonstrate substantial similarity or copying of his work by the Defendants.

G.S. PATEL, J.

1. The Plaintiff, a professional film script writer, and whose father wrote scripts and dialogue for notable films, is the author of the film script entitled “ONCE”. The entirety of this script is annexed to the plaint at Exhibit “B”. The Plaintiff claims that a recently released film, Dhoom 3, infringes the Plaintiff’s copyright in his script “ONCE”. In the suit, the Plaintiff seeks an order that he be given credit in the titles of the film.

2. The Plaintiff claims that he had delivered this script to 1st Defendant’s office. Three years later, the film Dhoom 3 was released. The Plaintiff saw the film. He says he then realised that the film and his original script were so similar that the only possibility was that the 1st Defendant and, in particular, Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, credited as co-authors of the film script for Dhoom 3 (the 3rd Defendant being the director of the film) had infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright in his original work. The Plaintiff then filed the suit. I will deal with the rival contentions presently. The Notice of Motion at this stage is for a limited purpose. It seeks a restraint on Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from releasing the film on 28th June 2014 via satellite broadcast on television channel. This is proposed to be done by the 4th and 5th Defendants, who run several television channels under the name Sony TV.

3. I must note that at this stage there is one significant hurdle in the Plaintiff’s way: this film has already enjoyed a general public release in December 2013. It has then been released in various other media and forums, including most recently on DVD and CD. No injunction has been obtained by the Plaintiff in respect of those releases. The Plaintiff, therefore, has an additional burden to show how the release of the film on television channels via satellite broadcast will so prejudice him that an injunction must be granted. I must also note that only relief sought in this suit is for the credit in the film; there is no claim for damages.

4. I have heard Mr. Modi, learned counsel for the Plaintiff, Mr. Dhond, learned senior counsel for Defendants No. 1 to 3 and Mr. Kadam, learned Senior Counsel for Defendant No.4 at some considerable length. I have considered the very large volume of affidavits and pleadings filed, the many authorities cited and the oral arguments. I must straightaway state that, in my view, albeit at a prima-facie stage, the Plaintiff has not made out a sufficient case for the grant of injunctive reliefs in the terms sought in the Notice of Motion. He has not been able to demonstrate, even prima-facie, any infringement. He has not shown irretrievable injury or prejudice. He has not been able to show how the balance of convenience is in his favour especially given the wide general release and the fact that a restraint is bound to result in significant financial loss to the Defendants.

B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. These are the facts: On 17th December 2009 the Plaintiff registered his script with the Copyright Board. This is not in dispute. Sometime in early 2010, the Plaintiff claims, he submitted his literary work, i.e., the film script, to the 1st Defendant. There is very great deal of controversy about this, and a legal submission will turn on it as well. I will turn to those submissions presently. On 20th December 2013, the film, Dhoom 3 was released. The Plaintiff claims to have seen the film very the next day after its general public release. At this, the Plaintiff says, he was shocked to see the similarities between his four year old script and the new movie. He attempted to visit the offices of the 1st Defendant to place his case that his original script had been used in making of this film and that his copyright had been infringed. The Plaintiff, by all counts, seems to have been rebuffed in his attempts at a meeting, at least at this stage. There then followed some correspondence between the Plaintiff and representatives of Defendants No. 1 to 3. Aga