The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 65B, to address copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets in the entertainment industry.

Manmohan Singh, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyright, misappropriation of trade secrets/confidential information, malicious falsehood and for damages, rendition of accounts of profits, delivery up etc. against the defendant.

2. The plaintiff is a private limited Company which was incorporated in March 2009 with the objective inter alia of carrying on talent searches, promoting such talent and providing work opportunities and coaching of people in various art forms.

3. Mr. Preet Kanwar Singh Bedi is one of the Directors of the plaintiff and has a long and rich experience in the media and entertainment industry as well as in the field of advertising, production, distribution and marketing of Films and Television Shows etc.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that due to lack of a structured and easily accessible professional platform for individuals to showcase their talent, Mr. Bedi conceptualized the idea of an online search portal for individuals to showcase their talent and avail of growing opportunities in the entertainment field. Thereafter, in August 2007, Mr. Bedi came across the phrase “Ab Meri Baari” which appealed to him instantly due to the phrase’s perfect application with Mr. Bedi’s idea.

5. The website www.abmeribaari.com (in its present and final format) was developed by the plaintiff with the help of two other entities namely, M/s Hungry and Foolish Creative Products India (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Hungry and Foolish’] and M/s Rage Communications (P) Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Rage Com.). The plaintiff is the first owner of the copyright of the said website by virtue of the assignment deeds vested in its favour.

6. The structure and concept of the plaintiff’s website, in addition to being completely unique and set apart from other “talent promotion” websites is confidential information and constitutes a valuable trade secret of the plaintiff. The complex structure of the website was developed without the defendant’s involvement, long after he had dissociated himself from the plaintiff Company. Further, the details of the unique and complex structure of the website have never been disclosed to the defendant.

7. The plaintiff’s website has a highly unique and developed original structure which offers unparalleled services to its members, details of which has been given in para 6 of the plaint.

8. The case against the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff is that Mr. Bedi and the defendant who is a web developer were personally known to each other. In the year 2007, Mr. Bedi approached the defendant being aware of his experience in website development and in the hope of acquiring assistance in raising investment capital for the venture and upon the request of Mr. Bedi, the defendant had registered the domain name www.abmeribari.com in November 2007.

9. It is alleged that from the beginning, there was a very clear understanding that while Mr. Bedi would handle the commercial, administrative, marketing and distribution and the day to day affairs of the plaintiff Company, the defendant was to manage the website, its maintenance and supporting technology.

10. It is stated that a term sheet was prepared between Mr. Bedi and the defendant on one hand and other potential investors of the plaintiff Company on the other hand. The term sheet prescribed the broad framework of the paid up capital share of investments for the plaintiff’s incorporation. Further, the Shareholders Agreement signed between Mr. Bedi and the defendant (Promoters) and other potential investors gave another opportunity to the defendant to invest and raise capital of the plaintiff Company. It is alleged that the term sheet signed by the defendant clearly stated inter alia that the defendant was to develop the website at his own cost and transfer it upon completion to the plaintiff Company.

11. It is alleged that upon agreeing each other’s spheres of responsi