SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 547

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
Digital Collectibles Pte Ltd. and Others - Plaintiffs
Versus
Galactus Funware Technology Private Limited and Another - Defendants
CS(COMM) 108 OF 2023
Decided On : 26-04-2023

Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Sandeep Sethi and Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocates with Ms. Shwetasree Majumder, Mr. Aditya Verma, Mr. Prithvi Singh, Mr. Rohan Krishna Seth, Ms. Parkhi Rai and Mr. Rigved Prasad, Advocates.
For the Defendant :Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Raj Latha Kotni, Mr. Anuridh Ramanathan and Mr. Anoop George, Advocates, Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Maanav Kumar, Ms. Tara Narula, Ms. Nupur, Ms. Bijaharini G, Mr. Rishab Sharma and Mr. Saksham Dhingra, Advocates,
For All India Gaming Federation/Intervener:Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Gupta, Ms. Kruttika Vijay, Mr. Dhruv Garg, Mr. Utkarsh Srivastava, Mr. Rahul Bajaj, Mr. Sauhard Alung and Ms. Sanya Kumar, Advocates, Ms. Shilpa Gamnani and Mr. Nishtha Chaturvedi, Advocates for Intervener in I.A. 4443/2023

Headnote:(A) Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Right of publicity - Online Fantasy Sports - Plaintiffs sought injunction against defendants for using players' names and likeness without authorization - Court reviewed the legal status of the right of publicity in India, noting its limited scope - The plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood of confusion or endorsement regarding the use of names/images in online gaming platforms - The balance of convenience favored the defendants as an injunction would halt their business operations. (Paras 112, 130, 156)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, involved in the online fantasy sports business with a registered platform, sought an injunction against defendants who also operated a similar platform using NFTs for player cards. The argument centered on unauthorized use of player identities versus public domain information.

Findings of Court:
The plaintiffs' claims regarding personality rights were dismissed based on the principle that information in the public domain cannot be exclusively owned, thus no infringement was found.

Issues: The court evaluated whether the defendants' use constitutes unfair competition or misappropriation of publicity rights and if an interim injunction was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: The right to publicity under Indian law is not absolute, and it is considered subservient to free speech protections, particularly concerning public domain information. The court emphasized that the usage of players' names, images, and associated performance data by OFS platforms does not imply endorsement, thus no actionable right arises in this context.

Result: Application for interim injunction dismissed.

Table of Content
1. growth of online fantasy sports (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court proceedings outline (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. intervention application process (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. plaintiffs' case and digital player cards (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
5. defendants' reply details (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
6. plaintiffs' counterarguments (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54)
7. recognition of personality rights (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59)
8. commercialization of personality rights (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66)
9. defendants' arguments on limitations of rights (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72)
10. counterarguments on publicity rights (Para 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85)
11. intervenor's viewpoint on publicity rights (Para 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92)
12. court's acknowledgment of u.s. case law (Para 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107)
13. u.k. case law implications (Para 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112)
14. indian case law on publicity rights (Para 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120)
15. further analysis on publicity rights laws (Para 121 , 122 , 123 , 124)
16. balancing rights of publicity and free speech (Para 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129)
17. information available in public domain (Para 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134)
18. use of transformative elements in art (Para 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140)
19. seller's rights versus player rights (Para 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148)
20. risk of injunction's impact on business (Para 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154)
21. final ruling on the application (Para 155 , 156 , 157 , 158)

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BANSAL, J.

Introduction

1. The present case highlights the exponential growth of Online Fantasy Sports [hereinafter “OFS”] in India. As per a report prepared by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP and the Federation of Indian Fantasy Sports in the year 2022, the OFS market in India has (i) over thirteen crore users in the country already; (ii) provided over 5,000 indirect jobs with the potential to create more employment opportunities in the future; and, (iii) created opportunities for investment and commerce through sponsorships, partnerships and the like[FIFS & Deloitte, Fantasy Sports : Creating a virtuous cycle of sports development 8,20-37(2022)]. In 2020, the Niti Aayog, in its discussion paper focused toward identifying the OFS space in India, highlighted the exponential growth in the Indian OFS market and made recommendations on how to navigate the unchartered waters of online fantasy sports gaming[NITI Aayog, Guiding Principles for the Uniform National-Level Regulation of Online Fantasy Sports Platforms in India draft for discussion 1-4 (2020)]. As recent as 6th April, 2023, after judgment was reserved in the present case, even the Central Government has notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023, aiming to regulate online gaming through a self-regulatory model and at the same time, provide an enabling framework to allow the OFS sector to expand[Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023, G.S.R. 275(E). (April 6, 2023).] Before proceeding any further, it may be useful to understand what the basic concept of an OFS game is and how it functions.

2. OFS games are a form of online gaming offered on the internet that allow users/fans of sports to create and manage their own virtual teams based on real athletes in formats set by online gaming platforms. Such online games allow users to compete against each other in various virtual gaming events/leagues centred around real-world sporting events and are based on, inter alia, the statistical data of the performance of sportspersons. To participate in the fantasy sports games offered by these online platforms, users ar

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top