1997 (8) TMI 525 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Passing off
2. Inducing a breach of contract
3. Conversion
4. Copyright and Broadcast Reproduction Rights

Summary:

Re (a) Passing off:
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were blanking out the plaintiffs' advertisements and substituting them with their own during the broadcast of Zee TV programs. This unauthorized action was argued to be passing off, as it misled viewers into believing the local advertisements were part of the original Zee TV broadcast. The court held that such acts amounted to passing off, citing cases like *Illustrated Newspapers Ltd. v. Publicity Services (London) Ltd.* and *Associated Newspaper Group v. Insert Media Limited and Ors.*, where similar unauthorized insertions were deemed misrepresentations likely to cause damage to the plaintiffs' goodwill.

Re (b) Inducing a breach of contract:
The plaintiffs contended that the defendants' actions interfered with their contractual obligations to advertisers by preventing the broadcast of advertisements. The court referenced cases like *Quinn v. Leathom* and *G.W.K. Limited and Ors. v. Dunlop Rubber Co.*, establishing that intentional interference with contractual relations without justification constitutes an actionable tort. The court found that the defendants' actions, which included switching off the plaintiffs' programs during advertisements, amounted to inducing a breach of contract, causing potential loss of advertisers and damage to the plaintiffs' business.

Re (c) Conversion:
The plaintiffs argued that the defendants' actions amounted to conversion of property in the form of signals. The court considered the definition of "goods" u/s 2(7) of the Sale of Goods Act and relevant case law, concluding that signals, like electric energy, are movable property. The defendants' act of blanking out the plaintiffs' signals during advertisements was deemed an act of conversion, as it interfered with the plaintiffs' rights to the signals, thus constituting a denial of the plaintiffs' rights.

Re (d) Copyright and Broadcast Reproduction Rights:
The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants' actions infringed on their copyright and broadcast reproduction rights. The court examined relevant provisions of the Copyright Act, including Sections 2(dd), 2(f), 2(ff), 13, 14, 30, 37, 39-A, 40, 51(a), and 54. The court held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of copyright infringement, as the defendants' unauthorized interruption and substitution of advertisements constituted a breach of the plaintiffs' exclusive rights. The court also noted that the defendants' actions violated the conditions under which the Zee TV program was broadcast as a "Free to Air Programme."

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the temporary injunction against the defendants on all counts, finding that the plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in favor of the plaintiffs. The application was rejected, and no order as to costs was made.