[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Gurbaaz Pratap Singh Mann vs Kunwar Raghav Bhandari And Ors on 10 April, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 10.04.2026
+ CS(COMM) 700/2024
GURBAAZ PRATAP SINGH MANN. .....Plaintiff
Versus
KUNWAR RAGHAV BHANDARI AND ORS. ....Defendants
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Plaintiff : Ms. Malvika Trivedi, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Nikhil Chawla, Mr. Nikhil Palli, Ms.
Niyati Razdan, Mr. Shailendra Slaria and
Ms. Mansha Mehta, Advocates.
For the Defendants : Mr. Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. J. Amal Anand,
Mr. Elvin Joshy, Ms. Shivani Kalra, Mr.
K.V. Vibu Prasad, Mr. Ayush Soni and Ms.
Annanya Mehan, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
1. This is an Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") on behalf of the
Plaintiff seeking interim injunction as under:
"a. A Decree for permanent injunction restraining the
Defendants, its directors, executives, partners or
proprietors, subsidiaries, sister concerns as the case
may be, their officers, servants and agents or any other
persons acting for and on their behalf from
misappropriating, performing, publishing,
disseminating, offering for use/sale, offering for
download, using, advertising, operating, marketing,
selling, dealing in any manner, directly or indirectly, the
Impugned Game 'IGPL FLASH GOLF/SMASH
FORMAT' which is a reproduction and/or substantial
reproduction and copy of the Plaintiffs' original
expression 'SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE'/'THE SMASH
LEAGUE' so as to infringe Plaintiff's Copyright in the
Game 'SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE'/'THE SMASH
LEAGUE', including but not limited to the Game
Mechanics/Game Play, format, other features as
mentioned herein etc, by reproducing the same in any
material form or using the same or any colourable
imitation thereof or otherwise howsoever, amounting to
infringement of Copyright;
b. A Decree for permanent injunction restraining the
Defendants, its directors, executives, partners or
proprietors, subsidiaries, sister concerns as the case
may be, their officers, servants and agents or any other
advertising, marketing, publishing, disseminating,
offering for use/sale, and/or dealing in any manner,
directly or indirectly, any brochure/sheet/literary text,
which is reproduction and/or substantial reproduction
of so as to infringe the Plaintiff's Copyright in the
original Literary Work titled 'SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE'
bearing Registration No. L- 87301/2019", amounting to
infringement of Copyright;
c. A Decree for permanent injunction restraining the
Defendants, its directors, executives, partners or
proprietors, subsidiaries, sister concerns as the case
may be, their officers, servants and agents or any other
persons acting for and on their behalf from using,
advertising, marketing, operating, offering for use,
and/or in any manner using directly or indirectly in
relation to any golf purposes and/or such allied and
cognate goods and/or services, under the Impugned
Mark 'SMASH' or any other identical and/or
deceptively similar mark to the Plaintiff's Mark 'THE
SMASH LEAGUE' / ', amounting to
infringement of the Plaintiffs registered marks under
Class 41;
d. A Decree for permanent injunction restraining the
Defendants, its directors, executives, partners or
proprietors, subsidiaries, sister concerns as the case
may be, their officers, servants and agents or any other
persons acting for and on their behalf from using,
advertising, marketing, operating, offering for use,
and/or in any manner using directly or indirectly in
relation to any golf purpose and/or such allied and
cognate goods and/or services, under the Impugned
Mark 'SMASH' or any other identical and/or
deceptively similar mark to the Plaintiff's Mark
'SMASH/THE SMASH LEAGUE' /
', or doing any other thing which
will lead to Passing off of the goods and services of the
Defendant as those of the Plaintiff;
e. A Decree for permanent injunction restraining the
Defendants, its directors, executives, partners or
proprietors, subsidiaries, sister concerns as the case
may be, their officers, servants and agents or any other
persons acting for and on their behalf from using,
advertising, marketing, operating, offering for use,
and/or in any manner using directly or indirectly in
relation to any golf purpose and/or such allied and
cognate goods and/or services, under the Impugned
Mark 'SMASH' or any other identical and/or
deceptively similar mark to the Plaintiff's Marks
'SMASH/THE SMASH LEAGUE' / ',
or doing any other thing which will lead to dilution of
the Plaintiff's Trade Marks mentioned in the Plaint;"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Plaintiff has filed the present Suit seeking, inter alia, permanent
injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing the Plaintiff's
exclusive copyright in respect of literary work containing the novel and
original expression being "SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE" / "THE SMASH
LEAGUE" by exploitation/utilization of the said work in any mode and
manner, without valid license or authorization from the Plaintiff in any
manner whatsoever and also infringement of trademark, passing off,
rendition of accounts, damages etc.
3. The Plaintiff, Mr. Gurbaaz Pratap Singh Mann, is a professional golfer
having over twenty years of experience. The Plaintiff claims to be an
acclaimed and renowned player in the sport of golf and related solutions in
technology, teaching solutions and industrial applications.
4. The Plaintiff has contended that in order to make the sport of golf
more viable for players and viewers and to boost the golf industry, the
Plaintiff created an original and unique expression of the game of golf
named "SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE" / "THE SMASH LEAGUE".
According to the Plaintiff, the original expression of the Plaintiff's Work has
a unique game format, rules, penalties, point system, team structure etc.,
which is commonly referred to as "Smash/Fast paced Format", significantly
deviating from the traditional game of golf.
5. The Plaintiff claims that the Plaintiff first conceptualized "SHOT
SQUAD LEAGUE" / "THE SMASH LEAGUE" in August, 2019 and
conducted trial, in which 30 players took part until the expression was
streamlined as a complete solution. The Plaintiff has stated that substantial
time and resources were spent by the Plaintiff on this work.
6. It is the case of the Plaintiff that Plaintiff applied for a copyright as a
Literary Work on 14.10.2019 and subsequently, the Plaintiff obtained the
copyright registration on 27.11.2019 for the original Literary Work titled
"SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE" bearing registration No.L-87301/2019. The
Plaintiff claims that the features which make "SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE" /
"THE SMASH LEAGUE" a one-of-a-kind unique and original expression
of the traditional game of golf are as under:
a. Team Game: "SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE" / "THE SMASH
LEAGUE" is a team game where each team has 4-5 players and is
inherently distinguishable from the traditional game of golf which is a
predominantly a single player game. In the Team Game, all teams
shall designate one member amongst themselves as a Captain/Team
Representative to be a point of contact with the League.
b. Specialization in any one discipline: In the traditional game of golf, a
player has to play all four specializations / broad disciplines i.e.
driving and tee shot, fairway woods, hybrids and irons, wedges and
short game and putting. Whereas in "SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE" /
"THE SMASH LEAGUE", players chose one of the four
specializations / disciplines by declaring their specialization before
teeing off on a hole.
c. Limited number of clubs allowed: In the traditional game of golf, 14
clubs are allowed to an individual player, however, in "SHOT
SQUAD LEAGUE" / "THE SMASH LEAGUE", the Tee Specialist is
allowed 3 clubs, Fairway Specialist is allowed 6 clubs, Shot Game
Specialist is allowed 4 clubs and Putting Specialist is allowed only
Putter and the same must be declared before teeing off a hole.
d. Nominated Player depending on PAR in Golf: In the traditional
game of golf, single player will play all types of PAR, whereas in
"SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE" / "THE SMASH LEAGUE", the number
of players for each PAR shall be nominated equal to the number of
strokes required to be played for that particular hole.
e. Introducing Limited Holes in Play: In "SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE" /
"THE SMASH LEAGUE", there shall be a specified hole in play
between 2 to 6 as opposed to 9 or 18 holes in the traditional game of
golf. Each team shall play each hole a specified number of times
consecutively as determined for that event.
f. Introduction of Designated Drop Zones: In "SHOT SQUAD
LEAGUE" / "THE SMASH LEAGUE", there shall be a designated
DROP ZONE marked in the Fairway and if the tee shot is hit out of
bounds, the Tee Specialist shall not play a provisional ball and the
Iron Specialist shall drop a ball in the DROP ZONE and play the
fourth shot.
g. Specific Designations only for Putting: In "SHOT SQUAD
LEAGUE" / "THE SMASH LEAGUE", only the Putting Specialist is
allowed to Putt, however, the Shot Games Specialist is allowed on the
green to assist the Putting Specialist and the putting is allowed from
off the green.
h. Penalties: In case of unplayable lie, the players take a "Penalty Drop"
2 club lengths from nearest point of relief no closer to the hole and
repeat if necessary. Unrepaired bunkers and pitch marks shall incur a
1-shot penalty for the team responsible.
7. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the peculiar and distinguishing
feature of the Plaintiff's game "SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE" / "THE SMASH
LEAGUE", making it an original and unique expression of the Plaintiff in
comparison to the traditional game of golf are as follows:
"Feature Traditional Game of Golf 'Shot Squad League' / 'The
Smash League' by the Plaintiff
No. of Players Single Player Game It is a team game. Each Team
has 4-5 players.
Format A player must play all 4 Players may choose to
specializations/broad specialize in just one of the 4
disciplines ("driving and tee mentioned disciples of the sport
Shot, Fairway-woods, hybrids and yet compete as a team. This
and Irons, Wedges and Short way, the slight nuances
Game and Putting"). required within the change of
these 4 disciplines are no
longer hindrances in the
competitiveness and enjoyment
of the sport.
Holes In a standard round, there There shall be specified holes
are 18 holes or 9 holes. in play (2-6), as opposed to 9
holes or 18 holes in a standard
round of traditional game of
golf. Each team shall play each
hole a specified number of
times consecutively as
determined for that event.
Clubs Allowed Players are allowed to use The Tee Specialist is allowed
any of the 14 clubs. any of the 3 clubs. Fairway
Specialist is allowed any 6
clubs, Short Game Specialist is
allowed any 4 clubs, and
Putting Specialist is only
allowed Putter.
Time Takes 4 or more hours to play Takes 45 min or less to
a full round of golf. (18 holes) complete a full round. (1 to 6
holes)
Nomination of A single player has to play all Players are nominated by the
Players holes on the course. team depending on PAR. On a
PAR 3, 3 layers shall be
nominated by the team to play
the hole. On a PAR 4, 4 players
shall be nominated by the team
to play the hole. On a PAR 5, 5
players shall be nominated by
the team to play the hole. On a
PAR 5, there shall be 2 fairway
specialists. Therefore the 6
allotted clubs shall be divided
between the 2 players as the
team decides and must be
declared before the hole is
played.
Introduction of SAFE ZONES are not SAFE ZONES are provided
Designated provided during play during the course of the play.
Drop and Safe SAFE ZONES are marked at
Zones places on each hole and around
the green. For their safety,
players must be in the SAFE
ZONE before their team
member hits the preceding shot.
There shall also be a
designated DROP ZONE
marked on the fairway. If the
tee shot is hit OUT OF
BOUNDS, the tee specialist
shall NOT play a provisional
ball. The Iron specialist shall
drop a ball in the DROP ZONE
and play the 4th shot. If the tee
shot is hit into the rough, the
Iron specialist has an option to
declare the ball unplayable if
need be. In that case, the Iron
specialist shall drop a ball in
the DROP ZONE and play the
4th shot.
Location Not considered a Stadium Designed to be played in a
Sport STADIUM / Arena
environment"
8. According to the Plaintiff, the Game Mechanics / Game Play, which
includes the strategy for choosing the club, players depending on
specialization in disciplines of golf, unique and novel format, limited holes,
etc., are the unique and original expression of the Plaintiff's game "SHOT
SQUAD LEAGUE" / "THE SMASH LEAGUE", which is solely the
creative result of the Plaintiff's hard work, knowledge, skill and labour.
9. The Plaintiff has also registered the Mark, "THE SMASH LEAGUE"
/ under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in Class 41 for
services being 'education, providing training and sporting activities relating
to golf, educating the players regarding playing golf game, providing
training to players, technical training of players to improve performance and
technique of playing golf, provision and management of sporting events,
management of events for sporting clubs' bearing trade mark number
4441624 dated 14.02.2020 on a 'proposed to be used' basis.
10. The Plaintiff claims that the Plaintiff has been continuously,
uninterruptedly and extensively using the Trade Mark /
for all its marketing activities, social media handles
and website since February, 2020 and therefore, the said trade mark has
gained immense goodwill and reputation in the market, which makes the
user solely relate to the said Mark , to that of the
Plaintiff's game and no one else.
11. The Plaintiff has stated that the Plaintiff launched and performed the
literary work in "SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE" / "THE SMASH LEAGUE" by
conducting a competitive tournament for the first time in Chandigarh on
02.03.2020 under banner of "THE SMASH LEAGUE", in which Defendant
No.1 also took part as a player and was a part of the WhatsApp group titled
"THE SMASH LEAGUE" and, therefore, he got complete access to the
Plaintiff's original work.
12. The Plaintiff obtained the registration of the Trade Mark "THE
SMASH LEAGUE" / bearing Application No.4441624
in Class 41 on 14.10.2020.
13. In January, 2021, Defendant No. 7, Brandon Desouza approached the
Plaintiff for collaboration and the Plaintiff disclosed the original expression
of the game format / rules / features and proprietary information of the
Plaintiff's Work to Defendant No. 7 through e-mail dated 17.02.2021.
14. In November 2023, Defendant Nos. 1 and 6 approached the Plaintiff
for collaboration. On 16.01.2024, Defendant No.6 filed a multi-class
application for the Mark "IGPL" including Class 41. On 13.03.2024,
Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 incorporated Defendant No. 4 company. On
08.04.2024, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 incorporated Defendant No. 5 company.
On 26.04.2024, Defendant No.6 circulated a private placement offer of
Rs.10,00,00,000/- to invest in Defendant No.3 company.
15. The Plaintiff has stated that the Plaintiff was shocked to learn that
Defendant No.3 conducted "IGPL Invitational Golf 2024 Tournament" at
Jaypee Greens Golf Course, Greater Noida on 28.06.2024, wherein
Defendant No. 3 had launched "IGPL FLASH GOLF / SMASH FORMAT"
("Impugned Work"), which was an exact imitation and / or substantial
reproduction of the Game Mechanics / Game Play of Plaintiff's original
expression "SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE" / "THE SMASH LEAGUE" and
Plaintiff's copyrighted literary work titled "SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE".
16. Defendant No. 3 is operated by Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 companies,
wherein Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 are the directors.
17. The Plaintiff claims that a bare perusal of the Information Sheet
("Impugned Sheet") for the Impugned Work shows substantial reproduction
of the Work of the Plaintiff including the registered Literary Work of the
Plaintiff. Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant No. 3 has blatantly copied all
the features such as conditions of play, team composition, format, penalties,
scoring etc., of the Plaintiff's work in a substantial manner.
18. The comparison of the Impugned Sheet and the Plaintiff's Literary
Work is as under:
"Expression Details of Impugned Work Plaintiff's Literary
in the Defendant No. 3' Work
Impugned Brochure/Sheet
Provision of Team "Professional will play the "Each Team is a 2 or
IGPL Flash Golf Format more-member team"
as a team"
Announcing/Declaring "team members will pre- "Each Player must
the Role of a Player assign each player for declare their
specific shot 'Specialization'
taking...Teams detailing (Discipline) or multiple
the players with shots specializations
assigned MUST be (disciplines)."
announced to the
tournament committee
before the start of the
play."
Types of shots/Role of "If player A has been pre- "Tee Specialist - as per
the Players based on assigned for Tee Shot, event rules
the type of shots player B for the second Fairway Specialist - as
shot, player C for the 3rd per event rules
shot and player D for the Wedge Specialist - as
Putt" per event rules
Putting Specialist - as
"Definite areas will be per event rules"
MARKED on the course for
specific shots as Tee Shot
(1st Shot), Approach (2nd
Shot), Chipper (3rd Shot)
and Putter (4th Shot)."
Provision of Specified "Time Limitation - Each "'Time Keeping' is a
Time hole will be granted 120 new addition to the sport
seconds to complete which to ensure that everyone
will be the specified time on the hole is able to
limit." maintain the pace of the
play. The pace will be
set the moment the tee
ball is hit.
Advantages: 1. Time
saving..."
Provisional/Spare Ball "Besides the Ball-in-play, "In case of out of
to be with the players Players are advised to keep bounds or probable ball
during the play a spare Golf Ball with them lost, the provisional ball
at all times during the must be played
IGPL Flash Golf Round" immediately as the clock
will not reset for the new
ball-in-play on the
hole."
Similar no of holes "IGPL Flash Golf Format played over 1 to 6 holes
played over 2 holes"
Ranking based on "The gross score by the "Introduces a new Team
Team's Performance team's professional and the ranking on a global
total score will lead to the scale."
leaderboard being decided.
The team with the lowest "Worst score on the
score will the winner of the hole is defined by the
IGPL Invitational" event management"
Out of Play "A ball with be considered "In case of Out of
out-of-play if the ball bounds...the provisional
comes to rest outside the ball must be played
boundary of the immediately"
runner...teams must use
nearest drop zone and
continue play."
19. The Plaintiff has stated that the funds for launching and promoting the
Impugned Work were raised from various channels including contributions
from Defendant No.6, who is also the registered proprietor for the word
Mark "IGPL", which is an abbreviation of Defendant No.3, Indian Golf
Premier League, and also the title of the Impugned Work.
20. According to the Plaintiff, there is a significant connection between
the Defendants suggesting a deliberate conspiracy to misappropriate the
Plaintiff's original work with the sole object of earning easy profits by
riding on the coat-tails of the Plaintiff's creative efforts, goodwill and
reputation without any independent investment by committing infringement
of Copyright and Trade Mark of the Plaintiff's Work and also passing off,
dilution and unfair competition.
21. The Plaintiff has, accordingly, filed the present Suit along with the
present Application.
22. Vide order dated 20.08.2024, Summons in the Suit and Notice in this
Application were issued. After the pleadings were completed, the
submissions on the present Application were heard on 09.12.2025. The
order dated 09.12.2025 records as under:
"1. The learned Senior Counsel for the Parties have made their
submissions.
2. Both the Parties shall file their respective Notes
distinguishing the Judgments relied upon by the other side within a
period of two days from date.
3. In relation to the interim relief sought in Paragraph No. 23(c)
of this Application with regard to the infringement of the Mark,
'SMASH' or any other identical and / or deceptively similar mark to
the Plaintiff's Mark 'THE SMASH LEAGUE' /
' ', the learned Senior Counsel for the
Defendants, on instructions, submits that without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of the Defendants that the Plaintiff cannot
have exclusivity on the word 'SMASH', the Defendants have ceased
using the word 'SMASH' and in place of the same, are using the
word 'FLASH' even prior to filing of the present Suit, which will
continue till the final disposal of this Suit. The said Statement is
taken on record and the Defendants are directed to be bound by the
same.
4. As the Defendants have unilaterally decided to not use the
word 'SMASH' in relation to any golf tournament or providing any
other allied and cognate goods and / or services offered by them and
have agreed to be bound by the said Statement during the pendency
of the Suit, the relief sought in Paragraph No. 23(c) of this
Application does not survive.
5. List for further directions on 12.12.2025 in the Supplementary
List."
23. Accordingly, on 12.12.2025, the Parties submitted their respective
Notes distinguishing the judgments relied upon by the other side and the
order was reserved.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
24. Learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that:
24.1 The Plaintiff's original work being "SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE" is
worthy of copyright protection as the gaming format / Game Play is original
and has a unique format, rules, penalties, point system, team structure,
details of which are evident from the table comparing the traditional game of
golf and "SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE" / "THE SMASH LEAGUE".
24.2 The comparison also shows that there is a modicum of creativity in
the Plaintiff's unique expression and the Plaintiff has put certain skill and
creativity in the expression of his idea, which is protectable as held in
Eastern Book Company & Ors. v. D.B. Modak & Anr., 2007 SCC OnLine
SC 1513.
24.3 The Plaintiff has a registered copyright over the Literary Work
highlighting the original expression of Plaintiff's Work. Therefore, the
Defendants cannot infringe the copyright in the Literary Work in the
Plaintiff's Work.
24.4 It is settled law that reproduction or adoption of the registered
copyright in literary work in any material form or any substantial part
thereof, would amount to infringement of copyright. When an idea allows
for various expressions, each unique expression can be protected. An
infringement is not confined to an exact repletion or reproduction, but also
includes various modes in which the matter of any work may be adopted,
imitated, transferred or reproduced with colourable alterations to disguise
the piracy. Further, infringement of a literary work need not necessarily be
through a literary work alone, rather any adoption of literary work in any
form or manner or reproduction of work in any material form is enough to
establish such an infringement. The test is whether the accused work is so
similar to the plaintiff's work that an ordinary reasonable person would
conclude that defendant unlawfully appropriated the plaintiff's protectable
expression by taking material of substance and value as held in Atari Inc. &
Anr. v. North American Phillips Consumer Electronics Corp., 672 F. 2d
607-1982 (United States-Court of Appeals for Seventh Circuit).
24.5 It is held by the Courts that if the idea is worked out in some detail
and the expression of that idea is reproduced, then the same amounts to
infringement. In the present case, it is not the idea but the detail expression
of the idea that has been copied by the Defendants. The form of expression
of a literary work does not mean only the text in which that work is written,
however, it may also include the selection and arrangement in a particular
order of incidents, whether factual or fictional as held in Urmi Juvekar
Chiang v. Global Broadcast News Ltd. & Anr., 2007 SCC OnLine Bom
24.6 The Impugned Work has infringed the Plaintiff's copyrighted Work by
use of Impugned Sheet during the tournament "IGPL FLASH GOLF /
SMASH FORMAT" held on 28.06.2024 at Chandigarh.
24.7 The Defendants have committed breach of confidence as the Plaintiff
shared the details of his Work, including the format and rules over e-mail
dated 17.02.2021 with Defendant No. 6 under confidence. Defendant No. 6
had complete access to all details of the Plaintiff's Work which was leaked
to all the other Defendants in complete breach of confidence.
24.8 It is settled law that breach of confidence in a concept or idea entitles
grant of injunction as held in Anil Gupta & Anr. v. Kunal Dasgupta, 2002
SCC OnLine Del 250, Urmi Juvekar Chiang (supra) and Zee Telefilms Ltd.
v. Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2003 SCC OnLine Bom 344.
24.9 Accordingly, the Plaintiff is entitled to interim injunction restraining
the Defendants from infringing the Plaintiff's exclusive copyright in respect
of the Literary Work without any valid license from the Plaintiff.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:
25. Learned Senior Counsel for the Defendants submitted that:
25.1 It is a settled position of law and an essential element of Copyright
Law that it does not grant the author of a literary work protection on
'ideas' and 'facts'. It is only the creative expression of such ideas and
facts that is rewarded by law by conferring privilege to exclusively
exploit such expression for a limited time.
25.2 In the present case, the alleged 'artistic work' on which the Plaintiff
claims proprietary right over a particular format / rules of the popular
game of Golf is barred by law and is in teeth of the 'doctrine of
merger', which postulates that where the idea and expression are
inextricably connected, it would not be possible to distinguish
between the two.
25.3 In R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978) 4 SCC 118, it is held that:
"45. Thus, the position appears to be that an idea, principle,
theme, or subject-matter or historical or legendary facts being
common property cannot be the subject-matter of copyright of a
particular person. It is always open to any person to choose an idea
as a subject-matter and develop it in his own manner and give
expression to the idea by treating it differently from others. Where
two writers write on the same subject similarities are bound to occur
because the central idea of both are the same but the similarities or
coincidences by themselves cannot lead to an irresistible inference
of plagiarism or piracy. Take for instance the great poet and
dramatist Shakespeare most of whose plays are based on Greek-
Roman and British mythology or legendary stories like Merchant of
Venice, Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Julius Ceasar etc. But the
treatment of the subject by Shakespeare in each of his dramas is so
fresh, so different, so full of poetic exuberance elegance and
erudition and so novel in character as a result of which the end
product becomes an original in itself. In fact, the power and passion
of his expression, the uniqueness, eloquence and excellence of his
style and pathos and bathos of the dramas become peculiar to
Shakespeare and leaves precious little of the original theme adopted
by him. It will thus be preposterous to level a charge of plagiarism
against the great playwright. In fact, throughout his original
thinking, ability and incessant labour Shakespeare has converted an
old idea into a new one, so that each of his dramas constitute a
masterpiece of English literature. It has been rightly said that
"every drama of Shakespeare is an extended metaphor". Thus, the
fundamental fact which has to be determined where a charge of
violation of the copyright is made by the plaintiff against the
defendant is to determine whether or not the defendant not only
adopted the idea of the copyrighted work but has also adopted the
manner, arrangement, situation to situation, scene to scene with
minor changes or super additions or embellishment here and there.
Indeed, if on a perusal of the copyrighted work the defendant's work
appears to be a transparent rephrasing or a copy of a substantial
and material part of the original, the charge of plagiarism must
stand proved. Care however must be taken to see whether the
defendant has merely disguised piracy or has actually reproduced
the original in different form, different tone, different tenor so as to
infuse a new life into the idea of the copyrighted work adapted by
him. In the latter case there is no violation of the copyright.
46. Thus, on a careful consideration and elucidation of the
various authorities and the case law on the subject discussed above,
the following propositions emerge:
1. There can be no copyright in an idea, subject-matter,
themes, plots or historical or legendary facts and violation of
the copyright in such cases is confined to the form, manner and
arrangement and expression of the idea by the author of the
copyrighted work.
2. Where the same idea is being developed in a different
manner, it is manifest that the source being common,
similarities are bound to occur. In such a case the courts
should determine whether or not the similarities are on
fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression
adopted in the copyrighted work. If the defendant's work is
nothing but a literal imitation of the copyrighted work with
some variations here and there it would amount to violation of
the copyright. In other words, in order to be actionable the
copy must be a substantial and material one which at once
leads to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty of an act of
piracy.
3. One of the surest and the safest test to determine whether or
not there has been a violation of copyright is to see if the
reader, spectator or the viewer after having read or seen both
the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable
impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of
the original.
4. Where the theme is the same but is presented and treated
differently so that the subsequent work becomes a completely
new work, no question of violation of copyright arises.
5. Where however apart from the similarities appearing in the
two works there are also material and broad dissimilarities
which negative the intention to copy the original and the
coincidences appearing in the two works are clearly incidental
no infringement of the copyright comes into existence.
6. As a violation of copyright amounts to an act of piracy it
must be proved by clear and cogent evidence after applying the
various tests laid down by the case-law discussed above.
7. Where however the question is of the violation of the
copyright of stage play by a film producer or a director the
task of the plaintiff becomes more difficult to prove piracy. It is
manifest that unlike a stage play a film has a much broader
prospective, wider field and a bigger background where the
defendants can by introducing a variety of incidents give a
colour and complexion different from the manner in which the
copyrighted work has expressed the idea. Even so, if the viewer
after seeing the film gets atotality of impression that the film is
by and large a copy of the original play, violation of the
copyright may be said to be proved."
25.4 In Sanjay Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt.
Ltd., (2018) SCC OnLine Del 10476, it is held that a concept cannot
be a subject matter of copyright because a concept has to be brought
into the form of a literary work or dramatic work or musical work or
artistic work or cinematographic work or sound recording or a
performance / performer's right or live show only where-after there
will exists a copyright in the work.
25.5 In view of the above, an idea, principle, theme or subject matter or
historical or legendary fact being common property cannot be subject
matter of copyright of a particular person. It is always open to any
person to choose an idea as subject matter and develop it in his own
manner and give expression to the idea by treating it different from
others.
25.6 The Courts have applied the 'Doctrine of Merger' to the facts and
circumstances where a party has claimed copyright over 'abstracts
rules and play ideas' of an already existing sport / game and have
refused to grant protection to the same.
25.7 In Mattel, Inc. & Ors. v. Mr. Jayant Agarwalla & Ors., ILR (2009) II
Delhi 193, it is held that:
"21. An essential element of copyright law is that it does not grant
the author of a literary work protection on ideas and facts.
(Baker v. Seldon, 101 US 99 [1879], Nichols v. Universal Pictures
Corp., 45 F.2d (2d Cir. 1930), RG Anand v. Delux Films, (1978) 4
SCC 118) It is only the creative expression of such ideas and facts
that is rewarded by law, by conferring a privilege to exclusively
exploit such expression for a limited time. Law does not protect
every such expression. The issue in Baker was whether the
defendant's publication of a book on 'book-keeping' articulating a
similar manner of book keeping as was done in the plaintiffs book
amounted to infringement. Severing the expression of the idea of
book keeping from the very science of boo keeping the Court held as
follows:
"On the other hand, the teachings of science and the
rules and methods of useful art have their final end in
application and use; and this application and use are
what the public derive from the publication of a book
which teaches them. But as embodied and taught in a
literary composition or book, their essence consists
only in their statement. This alone is what is secured
by the copyright. The use by another of the same
methods of statement, whether in words or
illustrations, in a book published for teaching the art,
would undoubtedly be an infringement of the
copyright.
The description of the art in a book, though entitled to
the benefit of copyright, lays no foundation for an
exclusive claim to the art itself. The object of the one is
explanation; the object of the other is use. The former
may be secured by copyright. The latter can only be
secured, if it can be secured at all, by letters-patent.
The novelty of the art or thing described or explained
has nothing to do with the validity of the copyright. To
give to the author of the book an exclusive property in
the art described therein, when no examination of its
novelty has ever been officially made, would be a
surprise and a fraud upon the public. That is the
province of letters-patent, not of copyright."
22. In the realm of copyright law the doctrine of merger
postulates that were the idea and expression are inextricably
connected, it would not possible to distinguish between two. In other
words, the expression should be such that it is the idea, and vice-
versa, resulting in an inseparable "merger" of the two. Applying
this doctrine courts have refused to protect (through copyright) the
expression of an idea, which can be expressed only in a very limited
manner, because doing so would confer monopoly on the ides itself.
The decision in Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry
Corporation v. Kalpakian, 446 F.2d 738 (1971) is illustrative in this
regard. The plaintiffs there sued the defendants asking them to
refrain from manufacturing bee shaped jewel pins. The Court held
that the jewel shaped bee pin was an idea that anyone was free to
copy, the expression of which could be possible only in a few ways;
therefore, no copyright could subsist in it. In Nichols, Judge
Learned Hand spoke about the famous "abstractions" test which the
courts must follow, when confronted with the idea/expression
dichotomy:
"Upon any work, and especially upon a play, a great
number of patterns of increasing generality will fit
equally well, as more and more of the incident is left
out. The last may perhaps be no more than the most
general statement of what the play is about, and at
times might consist only of its title; but there is a point
in this series of abstractions where they are no longer
protected, since otherwise the playwright could
prevent the use of his "ideas," to which, apart from
their expression, his property is never
extended. Holmes v. Hurst, 174 U.S. 82, 86, 19 S. Ct.
606, 43 L. Ed. 904; Guthrie v. Curlett, 36 F.(2d) 694
(CCA. 2)."
23. The case of Allen v. Academic Games League of Am., 89
F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 1996) is worth noticing at this stage. The plaintiff
in that case contended that the rule books published by the
defendants to play the games developed by the him, violated his
copyright over the tournament rulebooks developed by him. The
court rejected the plaintiffs claim and held that:
"A copyright only protects a particular expression of
an idea and not the idea itself Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S.
201, 218 (1954). Thus, ideas contained in a
copyrighted work may be freely used so long as the
copyrighted expression is not wholly appropriated.
This is often the case with factual works where an idea
contained iri an expression cannot be communicated
in a wide variety of ways. Landsberg v. Scrabble
Crossword Game Players, Inc., 736 F.2d 485, 488
(9th Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 103 7 (1984).
Consequently, the notions of idea and expression may
merge from such "stock" coacepts that even verbatim
reproduction of a factual work may not constitute
infringement. Accord See v. Durang, 711 F.2d 141,
143 (9th Cir. 1983); Sid & Marty Krofft Television
Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 11
57, 1163 (9th Cir. 1977); Aliotti v. R. Dakin & Co.,
831 F.2d 898, 901 (9th Cir. 1987).
This doctrine of merger is particularly applicable with
respect to games "since they consist of abstract rules
and play ideas." Midway Mfg. Co. v. Bandai-
America, Inc., 546 F.Supp. 125, 148 (D.N.J. 1982);
see also Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun
Group, 611 F.2d 296, 300 n.l. (9th Cir. 1979). A
similar logic has been applied to rules of a contest
where most subsequent expressions of an idea of a rule
are likely to appear similar to the words of a related
rule. See Morrissev v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 379
F.2d 675, 678-79 (1st Cir. 1967); Affiliated Hospital
Products, Inc. v. Merdel Game Mfg. Co., 513 F.2d
1183, 1188-89 (2nd Cir. 1975). Here, Allen has not
shown that it is possible to distinguish the expression
of the rules of his game manuals from the idea of the
rules themselves. Thus, the doctrine of merger applies
and although Allen may be entitled to copyright
protection for the physical form of his games, he is not
afforded protection for the premises or ideas
underlying those games. To hold otherwise would give
Allen a monopoly on such commonplace ideas as a
simple rule on how youngsters should play their
games." (emphasis supplied)
24. The doctrine of merger was also applied in Atari
Inc v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp, 672
F.2d 607, (1982 US App. LEXIS 21341) to deny wider protection to
elements in the video games. The US Court of Appeals (Seventh
Circuit), speaking through a panel of three judges, said:
"...copyright protection does not extend to games as
such. Chamberlin v. Uris Sales Corp, 150 F.2d. 512
(2d. Cir. 1945); see also Anti-Monopoly,
Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, 611 F. 2d. 296, 300
n. 1 (9th Cir. 1979)..."
The above formulation is not meant to foreclose copyright
protection to all games; indeed, there can be certain distinctive
elements, or patterns, innovated or created by its author, which,
though intrinsic to the game, can claim independent copyright
protection.
25. In India, in relation to games, rules and schemes (for
playing) are not protectable under the Patents Act, 1970; they are
not deemed inventions under the Act. Section 3 of the Patents Act,
provides as follows:
"3. WHAT ARE NOT INVENTIONS.
The following are not inventions within the meaning of
this Act,--
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
(m) a mere scheme or rule or method of performing
mental act or method of playing game;..."
An untenable patent claim-as rules of a game are-cannot
transmigurate into a wider, longer lasting copyrightable expression.
Such rules, in the absence of clear segregation of the expression
from the idea, cannot be granted copyright protection. The
expression, in this case is the idea itself.
26. The plaintiffs' claim to copyright is in respect of the three
game-boards, with the diagonal criss-cross design with placement of
the double word, triple word, double and triple letter values, as well
as rules of the game. Every literary or artistic work, to be afforded
protection, should be "original" under the Act. The content of what
is 'original' has undergone considerable change from the previously
applicable "sweat of the brow' doctrine spelt out in University of
London Press (supra) to the 'modicum of creativity' standard put
forth in Fiest Publication Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service, 199 US
340 (1991). Our Supreme Court has also signified a shift;
in Eastern Book Company v. DB Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1, following
the approach of the Canadian Supreme Court in CCH Canadian
Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, (2004) 9 SCC 13, it rejected
the sweat of the brow doctrine, (which conferred copyright on works
merely because time, energy, skill and labour was expended, that is,
originality of skill and labour), and held that the work must be
original "in the sense that by virtue of selection, co-ordination or
arrangement of pre-existing data contained in the work, a work
somewhat different in character is produced by the author". Our
Supreme Court noticed that the two positions i.e. the sweat of the
brow on the one hand, and "modicum of creativity"-were extreme; it
preferred a higher threshold than the doctrine of "sweat of the
brow" yet, not as high as "modicum of creativity". Thus, our law
too has recognized the shift, and mandates that not every effort or
industry, or expending of skill, results in copyrightable work, but
only those which create works that are somewhat different in
character, involve some intellectual effort, and involve a certain
degree of creativity. This standard of originality, is now applicable
in respect of the plaintiffs' claim to copyright in various aspects of
the game.
27. So far as the collocation of lines on the game board are
concerned; the diagonal colour scheme with values for words, and
the combination thereof, the element of modicum of creativity has
not been shown, to measure up to the test of "originality",
post Eastern Book Company. Even otherwise, the creative
expression, if any is minimalistic not to warrant copyright
protection. Furthermore, and most importantly, the application of
the doctrine of merger would mean that the colour scheme on such a
board can be expressed only in a limited number of ways; if the
plaintiffs' arrangement were to be avoided, it is not known whether
the idea of such a word game could be played at all. Similarly, the
reasoning in Allen and Atari, as far as copyrightability of rules of a
game are concerned apply squarely, in this case. This doctrine of
merger is applicable with respect to games as (according to those
decisions) "they consist of abstract rules and play ideas." By way of
illustration, the arrangement of colours, values on the board, the
collocation of lines, value for individual alphabetical tiles, etc have
no intrinsic meaning, but for the rules. If these rules-which form the
only method of expressing the underlying idea are to be subject to
copyright, the idea in the game would be given monopoly: a result
not intended by the lawmakers, who only wanted expression of ideas
to be protected. Thus, this court concludes, prima facie, that the
copyright claim of the plaintiff cannot be granted."
25.8 In Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Fantasy Sports Myfab11
Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6591, this Court relying on Mattel,
Inc. (supra) observed that where the idea and expression are inexplicably
linked or connected, it would not be possible to distinguish between the two
and the expression should be such that it is the idea and vice-a-versa,
resulting in an inseparable merger of the two.
25.9 In Samir Kansal v. Prashant Mehta & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del
184, this Court relying on R.G. Anand (supra) held that no one can claim
copyright on the 'game of cricket' or its evaluation into different formats. It
was observed in the said decision that several permutations and
combinations in the format of playing the 'game of cricket' have been
evolved over a period of centuries, therefore, it is reasonable that there can
also be no copyright in the evolution of cricket over a period of time from a
'5-Day Test Match Series' to 'T-20 Matches / One-Dayers'.
25.10 In view of the above settled position of law, the Plaintiff cannot claim
any proprietary right over a Format/Rules of Play of the already existing and
popular game of Golf. The sport of Golf is governed by the R&A group of
companies and United States Golf Associations (USGA). The USGA
exercises jurisdiction over United States and Mexico, whereas R&A
exercises jurisdiction in the remaining part of the world.
25.11 Apart from the traditional manner in which the Golf is played with
Single Player competing against the other Single Player(s) to get the best
score, it is also played in various other well-recognized formats and with
different Rules of Play. The Rules of Golf are published by R&A and Rule
22 of the R&A Rules provide for a popular format of Golf known as
'Alternate Shot', in which golfers compete in teams of two, using only one
ball per team, and taking alternate shots until the hole is completed. The said
format has been played in popular golf competitions such as Rider Cup,
Solheim Cup and Presidents Cup. Since 2000, this format has been used
with alternating rounds of Four-Ball by the world cup of Golf and since
2017, by Zurich Classic on the PGA Tour.
25.12 In the present case, the Defendants have adopted the format of
'Alternate Golf' with minor variations i.e. (i) it involves four players in one
team rather than conventional two members team in case of 'Alternate
Golf'; and, (ii) game is played on one hole using floating / mobile tee offs
(starting point of a hole) and revolving leg positions (where the hole ends).
Thus, adoption of renowned format of 'Alternate Golf' by Defendants can in
no manner be construed to be copyright infringement.
25.13 Even otherwise, the exact format over which the Plaintiff claims
copyright has been played widely all over the world and many of such
events / games have been held even prior to the alleged conceptualization of
the Plaintiff's original work.
25.14 The reliance on Eastern Book Company (supra) by the Plaintiff is
misplaced as the Plaintiff cannot claim copyright over a non-copyrightable
subject matter, i.e., sports formats. The said judgment exclusively deals with
the copyrightability of editorial inputs added to judicial decisions. However,
the Plaintiff asserts copyright over a sport format and gave mechanics,
which are rules of play emanating from the pre-existing game of Golf and
such rules do not constitute literary expression and, therefore, fall squarely
outside the scope of copyright protection.
25.15 The reliance placed on Urmi Juvekar (supra) is misplaced as the
nature of the copyrightable work recognized in that case was different from
the Plaintiff's alleged work as the Plaintiff cannot claim copyright over
scoring rules, game play mechanics of a Golf format, which are merely
methods of play and excluded from protection under the idea / expression
dichotomy and the 'Doctrine of Merger'.
25.16 Further, the decision in Atari (supra) concerned copyright
infringement of an audio-visual video game, its visual displays, graphical
characters etc., whereas the Plaintiff has sought protection for the rules,
mechanics and game play of a Golf format.
25.17 The allegation of the Plaintiff regarding breach of confidentiality, the
Plaintiff himself had admittedly conducted "THE SMASH LEAGUE"
tournament at Chandigarh in February 2020, wherein the game play
mechanics were openly implemented, demonstrated and necessarily
disclosed to all participants and spectators. Therefore, any claim by the
Plaintiff that such rules constituted secret, protectable material is
incompatible with the Plaintiff's deliberate and voluntarily decision to
publicly stage the tournament without any confidentiality agreement or
obligations or restrictions being imposed. The Plaintiff's own disclosures
place the alleged format squarely in the public domain, eliminating any
foundation for claims of confidentiality, originality or exclusive rights.
Further, there was no confidential relationship or any confidentiality
agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The Plaintiff
voluntarily circulated his alleged Work to players, coaches and third parties
without any confidentiality protections. Therefore, the Plaintiff's reliance on
Zee Telefilms Ltd. (supra) and Anil Gupta (supra) is misplaced.
25.18 In view of the above, the interim injunction sought by the Plaintiff be
rejected as the Plaintiff is not entitled to copyright protection for the rules,
mechanics and game play of a golf format since copyright cannot subsist in
a sports format.
REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
26. Learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that:
26.1 The Defendants have admitted that several permutations and
combinations in format for playing the game of golf exist and have been
evolved over a period of time. The Defendants have further admitted that the
Plaintiff's "SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE" and Defendants "IGPL Invitational
Golf 2024 Tournament" are both expressions of the game of golf to be
played in teams and there are numerous ways to structure golf competitions
involving teams.
26.2 Even assuming that several permutations and combinations of the
Rules / Formats offer playing the game of golf exists and having been
evolved over a period of time, the Plaintiff's Work has significant
distinguishing elements making it an original work, which can be protected
by copyright. It is settled law that expression of an idea is a subject pattern
worthy of copyright.
26.3 The Plaintiff's Work is not merely an idea or its expression is
inextricably linked to the idea of golf. The Defendants have failed to show
as to how Plaintiff's Work is merely an idea. The Plaintiff has obtained the
copyright registration for the original literary work titled as "SHOT SQUAD
LEAGUE" bearing registration No.L-87301/2019, which is valid and
subsisting. Further, the Plaintiff has officially launched and performed the
Literary Work by conducting a competitive tournament for the first time on
02.03.2020 at Chandigarh where Defendant No.1 was an active participant.
Therefore, the "SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE"/ "THE SMASH LEAGUE" is an
original expression with an original team format that allows the players to
score and perform within the scope and governance of the sport.
26.4 The Defendants have not denied that the Impugned Sheet, which was
provided / shared during the tournament "IGPL FLASH GOLF / SMASH
FORMAT" at Jaypee Greens Golf Course, Greater Noida on 28.06.2024,
was a substantial reproduction of the Plaintiff's registered Literary Work
being "SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE". Consequently, the Defendants have
effectively admitted to be engaged in copyright infringement insofar as the
Impugned Sheet is concerned. As per the comparison chart between the
Plaintiff's Work and the Impugned Sheet, it is clearly demonstrated that the
details of Impugned Work provided in the Impugned Sheet is nothing but a
glaring reproduction of the Plaintiff's Literary Work, amounting to copyright
infringement.
26.5 Various similar Golf formats relied upon by the Defendants are
irrelevant as none of the formats exhibit the unique combinations of Game
Mechanics / Game Play embodied in the Plaintiff's original work being
"SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE". Mere existence of team-based variations in the
game of Golf do not undermine or negate the originality of Plaintiff's
structured format, which includes novel and distinctive features and
elements such as specific roles, specialized clubs used, defined drop zones
etc., amounting to original expression of the Plaintiff's Work.
26.6 Accordingly, the present Application be allowed and the interim
injunction as prayed be granted.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
27. In terms of the order dated 09.12.2025, the interim injunction sought
in Paragraph 23(c) of this Application with regard to infringement of Mark
"THE SMASH LEAGUE" / does not survive and,
accordingly, this judgment only deals with the prayers regarding
infringement of copyright.
28. The Plaintiff has sought protection of his copyright in the Plaintiff's
Work titled "SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE" having copyright registration dated
27.11.2019 bearing registration No. L-87301/2019. The copyrighted work
of the Plaintiff is reproduced as under:
29. The Plaintiff has claimed that by using the Impugned Sheet at
Impugned Work, the Defendants have committed the infringement of the
copyright in Plaintiff's Work. The Impugned Sheet is reproduced as under:
30. As per the comparison between the Plaintiff's Work and Impugned
Sheet, the following expressions in the Impugned Sheet are claimed by the
Plaintiff to be a copy of the Plaintiff's Literary Work:
30.1 Provision of Team: Impugned Sheet provides that the professional
will play the IGPL Flash Golf Format as a 'team', whereas the Plaintiff's
Work provides that each team is a two, or more, member team. This shows
that both the Impugned Work and the Plaintiff's Work provide for team play.
However, merely by providing a team play would not amount to
infringement of copyright in Plaintiff's Work as team play in game of golf is
not an original idea that is expressed in the Plaintiff's Work. In the Rules of
R&A, the team play is provided in Rule 22 which is reproduced as under:
"22 Foursomes (Also Known as Alternate Shot)
22.1 Overview of Foursomes
Foursomes (also known as Alternate Shot) is a form of play
involving partners (in either match play or stroke play) where two
partners compete as a side by playing one ball in alternating order
on each hole.
Rules 1-20 apply to this form of play (with the side playing one ball
being treated in the same way as the individual player is treated), as
modified by these specific Rules.
A variation of this is a form of match play known as Threesomes,
where an individual player competes against a side of two partners
who play alternating shots under these specific Rules.
22.2 Either Partner May Act for Side
As both partners compete as one side playing only one ball:
• Either partner may take any allowed action for the side
before the stroke is made, such as to mark the spot of the ball
and lift, replace, drop and place the ball, no matter which
partner's turn it is to play next for the side.
• A partner and their caddie may help the other partner in any
way that the other partner's caddie is allowed to help (such as
to give and be asked for advice and take the other actions
allowed under Rule 10), but must not give any help that the
other partner's caddie is not allowed to give under the Rules.
• Any action taken or breach of the Rules by either partner or
either caddie applies to the side.
In stroke play, only one of the partners needs to certify the side's
hole scores on the scorecard (see Rule 3.3b).
22.3 Side Must Alternate in Making Strokes
On each hole, the partners must make each stroke for the side in
alternating order:
• Partners must alternate the order in which they play first
from the teeing area of each hole.
• After the side's first stroke from the teeing area of a hole, the
partners must alternate strokes for the rest of the hole.
• If a stroke is cancelled, replayed or otherwise does not count
under any Rule (except when a stroke is made in the wrong
order in breach of this Rule), the same partner who made the
stroke must make the next stroke for the side.
• If the side decides to play a provisional ball, it must be
played by the partner whose turn it is to play the side's next
stroke.
Any penalty strokes for the side do not affect the partners'
alternating order of play.
Penalty for Making a Stroke in the Wrong Order in Breach of Rule
22.3: General Penalty.
In stroke play, the side must correct the mistake:
• The right partner must make a stroke from where the side
made the first stroke in the wrong order (see Rule 14.6).
• The stroke made in the wrong order and any more strokes
before the mistake is corrected (including strokes made and
any penalty strokes solely from playing that ball) do not count.
• If the side does not correct the mistake before making a
stroke to begin another hole or, for the last hole of the round,
before returning its scorecard, the side is disqualified.
22.4 Starting the Round
22.4a Partner to Play First
The side may choose which partner will play from the first
teeing area in starting the round, unless the Terms of the
Competition say which partner must play first. The side's
round starts when that partner makes a stroke to start the
side's first hole.
22.4b Starting Time and Starting Point
Rule 5.3a applies differently to each partner based on who will
play first for the side:
The partner who will play first must be ready to play at the
starting time and starting point, and must start at (and not
before) that time.
The partner who will play second must be present at the
starting time either at the starting point or on the hole near
where the ball played from the teeing area is expected to come
to rest.
If either partner is not present in this way, the side is in breach
of Rule 5.3a.
22.5 Partners May Share Clubs
Rule 4.1b(2) is modified to allow partners to share clubs, so long as
the total number of clubs they have together is not more than 14.
22.6 Restriction on Player Standing Behind Partner When Stroke
Made
In addition to the limitations in Rule 10.2b(4), a player must not
stand on or close to an extension of the line of play behind the ball
while their partner is making a stroke to gain information for the
side's next stroke.
Penalty for Breach of Rule 22.6: General Penalty"
In view of the above, the idea of team play in the game of golf is not
original and, therefore, the Plaintiff cannot claim copyright in the expression
of the said idea in the Plaintiff's Work.
30.2 Announcing / Declaring the Role of a Player: In the Impugned
Sheet, it is stipulated that the team members will pre-assign each player for
specific shot taking and the same must be announced before the start of the
play, whereas in the Plaintiff's Literary Work, it is provided that each player
must declare their 'specialization' / 'discipline' or multiple 'specializations' /
'disciplines'. A comparison of this requirement in the Impugned Sheet as
well as the Plaintiff's Work shows that the team members will assign a
player for specific shots, however, there is no requirement to declare their
specialization. In the Impugned Sheet, any player can be assigned for
specific shot taking and there is no restriction for a particular player to
declare their specialization / discipline. Accordingly, there is no copy of the
Plaintiff's Work in the Impugned Sheet when it provides that the team
members will pre-assign each player for specific shot taking.
30.3 Types of Shots / Role of Players based on the type of Shots: The
Impugned Sheet provides that if 'A' player has been pre-assigned for Tee
Shot, player 'B' for the second shot, player 'C' for the third shot and player
'D' for the putt, definite areas will be marked on the course for specific
shots, whereas the Plaintiff's Work provide that there will be Tee Specialist,
Fairway Specialist, Wedge Specialist and Putting Specialist as per the event
rules. The comparison between the Impugned Sheet and the Plaintiff's Work
shows that in the Impugned Work, different players can be pre-assigned for
different shots and there will be specific marking on the course for specific
shots. However, in the Plaintiff's Work, there will be specialist for each of
the shots as per the event rules. Thus, the Impugned Work is not a copy of
the Plaintiff's Work as there is no requirement in the Impugned Work to
specify the specialists and any player can be pre-assigned for various shots,
which can be taken from definite areas marked for specific shots. Although,
there is similarity between the pre-assigned shots in Impugned Work and
designating specialist for each shot in Plaintiff's Work, both are
substantively different and cannot be said to be a copy of the Plaintiff's
Work.
30.4 Provision of Specified Time: The Impugned Sheet provides for time
limitation and states that each hole will be granted 120 seconds to complete,
whereas the Plaintiff's Literary Work provides that time keeping will be set
the moment tee ball is hit. Therefore, the requirement of Time Limitation in
the Impugned Work and Time Keeping in the Plaintiff's Work is entirely
different as there is no restriction of time to complete each hole in the
Plaintiff's Work, which only provides that Time Keeping will be introduced
to maintain the pace of play, which will be set the moment the tee ball is hit.
In view of the same, there is no copying of Plaintiff's Work in the Impugned
Sheet for this particular aspect.
30.5 Provisional / Spare Ball to be with Players during the Play:
Impugned Sheet provides that besides the ball-in-play, the players are
advised to keep a spare ball with them at all times. The Plaintiff's Literary
Work provides that in case of out of bound or probable ball loss, the
provisional ball must be played immediately as the clock will not reset for
the new ball-in-play on the hole. A comparative analysis of this requirement
in both the Impugned Sheet as well as Plaintiff's Literary Work would show
that there is no similarity between the respective provisions for provisional
ball / spare ball. The Impugned Sheet only advices the player to keep a
spare golf ball, whereas the Plaintiff's Work requires the player to
immediately play the provisional ball in case of out of bounds or probable
ball loss. Clearly, there is no copying of Plaintiff's Work by the Impugned
Work in this aspect.
30.6 Similar Number of Holes: Impugned Sheet provides that "IGPL
Flash Format" will be played over two holes, whereas the Plaintiff's Literary
Work provides that it will be played over 1 to 6 holes. Therefore, there is no
copying by Impugned Work of Plaintiff's Literary Work as regards the
number of holes to be played.
30.7 Ranking based on Team's Performance: Impugned Sheet provides
that the gross score by the team's professional and the total score will lead to
the leaderboard being decided and the team with the lowest score will be the
winner. The Plaintiff's Literary Work provides that there will be a new team
ranking on a global scale and the worst score on the hole is defined by the
event management. The Impugned Work provides that the gross score of the
team's professional and the total score will be taken into consideration for
declaring the winner. However, the Plaintiff's Work only mentions about
team ranking without providing how the score of the team will be decided as
it is left to be defined by the event management. Hence, there is no copying
by the Impugned Work of the team's ranking as provided in the Plaintiff's
Impugned Work.
30.8 Out of Play: Impugned Sheet provides that a ball will be considered
out-of-play if the ball comes to rest outside the boundary of the runner and
the teams must use the nearest drop zone and continue to play, whereas the
Plaintiff's Literary Work provides that in case of out of bounds, the
provisional ball must be played immediately. This requirement of out-of-
play is not unique and original in the Impugned Work as well as the
Plaintiff's Literary Work. The same requirement is already stipulated in the
traditional game of golf. Hence, the Plaintiff cannot claim copyright on this
requirement.
31. The above analysis shows that the infringement alleged by the
Plaintiff of his Literary Work is not borne out from the comparison between
the Plaintiff's Literary Work for which the Plaintiff has obtained copyright
registration, and the Defendants' Impugned Work. The analysis of the table
provided by Plaintiff himself to establish infringement of copyright clearly
shows that none of the elements of the Plaintiff's Work has been copied by
the Defendants.
32. There is no cavil that the Plaintiff is owner of the copyright contained
in Plaintiff's Literary Work for which the Plaintiff has obtained registration.
Therefore, the Plaintiff enjoys copyright in the Literary Work titled as
"SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE". Further, the Plaintiff has expressed his idea in
form of the Literary Work which has been granted registration. Hence, the
law laid down in R.G. Anand (supra), Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.
(supra) and Sanjay Kumar Gupta (supra) is not relevant.
33. As the Plaintiff's expression of idea contained in the Literary Work
titled as "SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE" contains game format, rules, penalties,
team structure and club limitation for player, Plaintiff's Work satisfies the
doctrine of 'Modicum of Creativity' and will not be hit by 'Doctrine of
Merger' as held in Mattel, Inc. (supra), which holds that when there are
multiple ways to express the same idea, the Doctrine of Merger will not
apply. The Plaintiff's Work is not abstract rules and play ideas and,
therefore, the reliance placed by Defendants on Samir Kansal (supra) will
not be relevant as the said decision involved a league that continued to play
the same game of cricket using the same rules and format as the traditional
sport. In the present case, the Plaintiff's Work involves a significant
distinction between the standard game of golf and the "SHOT SQUAD
LEAGUE" / "THE SMASH LEAGUE" introduced by the Plaintiff.
34. With respect to the allegation of breach of confidentiality by the
Defendants, the Plaintiff has not established any enforceable obligation of
confidentiality on the part of the Defendants. The Plaintiff disclosed
information regarding their work both to the Defendants and publicly during
the tournament held in Chandigarh, thus precluding any claim of
confidentiality over such work. Accordingly, there is no basis for granting
an injunction based on the alleged breach of confidentiality by the
Defendants.
35. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a prima facie case
of copying concerning the literary work titled "SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE"
by the Defendants through their use of the Impugned Sheet for the
Impugned Work. Comparative analysis indicates the absence of any
unauthorized copying. Since the Defendants have not reproduced the
Plaintiff's work in the Impugned Sheet related to the Impugned Work, they
cannot be restrained in the manner sought by the Plaintiff.
36. For these reasons, the balance of convenience favors the Defendants,
as the Plaintiff is not likely to suffer irreparable harm during the pendency of
the suit if the requested restraint is not imposed.
37. As a result, the present Application seeking interim injunction is
dismissed. However, it is clarified that the undertaking given by the
Defendants recorded vide order dated 09.12.2025 that the Defendants have
voluntarily ceased using the word 'SMASH' and in place of the same, are
using the word 'FLASH' and that they will continue to do so during the
pendency of this Suit, shall continue to operate.
TEJAS KARIA, J
APRIL 10, 2026
'gsr'
