Copyright subsists in the combination of situations, events, and scenes that constitute the particular realization or expression of an idea or theme. A substantial reproduction is required to constitute copyright infringement, and the work must be looked at as a whole.

A. OVERVIEW

1. By consent, the Notice of Motion is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. Since the time this Suit was filed, the Plaintiffs’ case in this copyright infringement action has changed more than somewhat. This is partly inevitable: much has transpired since the date of the first application for ad-interim reliefs and today. When Dr. Saraf first made his application for ad-interim reliefs on behalf of the Plaintiffs, he said that suit is based on a copyright infringement claim in, as he put it, “everything”: his clients’ film, its underlying script, screenplay and storyline. As we shall see, this also included a slightly more particularized claim. I will return to that presently.

3. I was given a copy of the Defendants’ screenplay. I struggled through it. It was not shared with Dr. Saraf or his teasm. Much later, I was also given a two-disc DVD copy of the Defendants’ work, a film called Baaghi, scheduled for release on 29th April 2016. After some initial hesitation, Mr. Dhond for the 2nd Defendant agreed to screen the film last evening for Mr. Mahadgut, the Plaintiffs’ Advocate on record, and their counsel. I have heard Dr. Saraf again this morning, Mr. Dhond for the 2nd Defendant and Mr. Doctor for the 1st Defendant.

4. The two works in question are two films. The Plaintiffs’ film is one called The Raid: Redemption. The Defendants’ film is Baaghi. Today, after all the intervening skirmishes, Dr. Saraf’s case is down to this: that substantially the whole of the The Raid: Redemption has been compressed into the last twenty minutes or so of Baaghi. He says the length is immaterial. He is possibly right in that, as a general proposition. He says, though, that Baaghi is a complete imitation of The Raid: Redemption: should any viewer see the last twenty minutes of Baaghi, he or she would undoubtedly conclude that it is a copy of The Raid: Redemption. I think he is wrong on facts. Baaghi’s actual running time is about two hours and twenty minutes. A necessary sequitur to Dr. Saraf’s arguments, therefore, is that first two hours of Baaghi are a wholly superfluous add on, entirely inconsequential. Necessarily this also means, and this is, I think, the test in law, that these last twenty minutes are key to, and are the kernel of, Baaghi. Take out these twenty minutes and nothing remains in that work.

5. I disagree. I have refused the injunction. My reasons follow.

6. On the averments in the Plaint, it is difficult to discern the precise frame of the Plaintiffs’ case. I say this because even though there has been an amendment which I permitted, the lack of a precise claim still persists. For the purposes of this judgment, I propose to take the Plaintiffs’ case at its best, making additional allowance that might not actually be warranted, and taking the case at its broadest. For instance, there is a serious dispute raised by the Defendants, especially the 2nd Defendant in its Affidavit in Reply, as to the maintainability of the Suit and the claim made on behalf of Plaintiff No. 3. I do not propose to hold against the Plaintiffs for that reason. Mr. Dhond has also pointed out that there are clear errors, ones he calls deliberate misstatements, in the Plaint and in the Affidavits filed by the Plaintiffs as the content of the Plaintiffs’ own film. I will let even these pass. The test to my mind is far more fundamental. If the Plaintiffs cannot satisfy that test, they fail. Conversely, if the Plaintiffs do make out a case of infringement, they cannot possibly be defeated merely because one particular averment is said to be inaccurate or because the Defendants dispute some of their title claims.

B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

7. The three Plaintiffs are, respectively, an American company, an Indonesian company and an Indian company. The Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are the producers of The Raid: Redemption. They claim to own the copyright in the film and its underlying works including the script, screenplay, storyline and dialogues. The