This Article delves into a recent legal case pending before Hon'ble Justice Ms.
Jyoti Singh, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in which a plaintiff filed a suit
against the defendant, alleging copyright infringement regarding a Fantasy
Sports Mobile App. The lawsuit revolves around the introduction of a new feature
by the defendant in their MYFAB11 app and the alleged copying of the plaintiff's
concept, working, features, and execution. This article provides an analytical
assessment of the case, examining the core arguments presented by both parties
and the court's observations.
The Plaintiff's Allegations:
The plaintiff, in this case, claimed that they had developed a unique Fantasy
Sports Mobile App, registered under the Copyright Act, 1957, as a literary and
dramatic work. The app differentiated itself from conventional Fantasy Games
Leagues. The subject matter suit was filed to prevent the defendant from making
the plaintiff's copyrighted work available for download through their MYFAB11
app, or any similar app using the same application or computer program, thereby
allegedly infringing the plaintiff's copyrighted works. The defendant had
introduced a new feature, 'STOCKS,' in their Fantasy Sports League Mobile App
MYFAB11, which the plaintiff asserted not only copied the concept but also its
working, features, and execution of the plaintiff's buy/sell interface.
The Defendant's Defense:
The defendants contested the plaintiff's claims by arguing that the plaintiff
had concealed the fact that they were not the first to combine the features of
Fantasy Sports Leagues with the stock market. They pointed out the existence of
numerous third-party applications with similar concepts. The defendant further
contended that the plaintiff's assertion of copyright infringement in the
Graphical User Interface (GUI) of their app was misconceived, as no copyright
was claimed in any artistic work.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, while refusing to grant interim injunction
relief, made several critical observations. The court noted that although the
plaintiff claimed to have introduced the unique idea of integrating Fantasy
Sports Leagues with the stock market in 2010, no material evidence was provided
to substantiate this claim. The absence of concrete evidence raised questions
about the originality and uniqueness of the plaintiff's concept.
The Court's Analysis:
The central question addressed by the court was whether the plaintiff had merely
adopted a pre-existing idea or reproduced it in a different form, tone, or tenor
to give it a new expression and infuse new life into the concept. In examining
the plaintiff's mobile app, the court found that the plaintiff had failed to
meet the burden of proof. The court's decision rested on the principle that
copyright protection is not granted to ideas but to the expression of those
The Concluding Note:
This case highlights the importance of concrete evidence and a strong legal
basis in copyright infringement suits, particularly in the dynamic world of
mobile applications. It underscores the need for plaintiffs to provide
substantial proof of originality and uniqueness when claiming copyright
infringement in the face of similar concepts.
The Case Law Discussed:
Case Title: Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs Fantasy Sports MYFAB11 Pvt. Ltd.
Date of Judgement/Order:17/10/2023
Case No. CS(COMM) 244/2022
Neutral Citation No: 2023:DHC:7593
Name of Hon'ble Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Jyoti Singh, H.J.
Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public
Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it
is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception,
interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
, IP Adjutor - Patent and
Email: [email protected]
, Ph no: 9990389539