Introduction
The case of Ashim Kumar Bagchi versus Balaji Telefilms Limited and Others revolves around allegations of copyright infringement and breach of confidence in cinematic storytelling. The plaintiff, an aspiring scriptwriter, claimed that his original literary work, initially titled “Kal Kisne Dekha” and later re-registered as “The Show Must Go On”, was unlawfully copied by the defendants in producing the film “Dream Girl 2”.
The Bombay High Court examined whether the plaintiff’s script merited copyright protection and if the defendants’ film constituted an infringement or misuse of confidential information. The judgment underscores that ideas, themes, and stock elements are not protectable and sets a precedent for rigorous scrutiny in interim applications seeking injunctions against film exploitation.
Factual Background
The plaintiff developed a script in 2007 centered on a gender swap comedy where a male protagonist disguises himself as a female actress to overcome financial hardships and enter the film industry. Registered with the Film Writers’ Association under number 127297, the script depicted a debt-ridden protagonist encouraged by a friend to adopt a female persona, leading to comedic situations involving a smitten producer.
Between 2009 and 2013, the plaintiff shared the script’s synopsis and concept with employees of Defendant No. 1 via emails and narrated it over a phone call to Defendant No. 4 in 2012, allegedly under conditions of confidence. In 2023, Defendant No. 1 released “Dream Girl 2”, a sequel to the 2019 film “Dream Girl”.
Upon viewing the trailer, the plaintiff issued a cease-and-desist notice on August 4, 2023, alleging infringement. The defendants denied similarities, claiming “Dream Girl 2” was independently developed from a 2021 synopsis by Defendant No. 5, with rights assigned to Defendant No. 1.
Procedural Background
On August 18, 2023, the plaintiff filed a commercial intellectual property suit seeking an injunction against the exploitation of “Dream Girl 2”. An urgent interim relief application was moved, but on August 22, 2023, the court declined to restrain the release due to the plaintiff’s last-minute approach.
The film was released on August 25, 2023, and later exploited across mediums. Defendant No. 1 filed an affidavit in reply on August 31, 2023, followed by a rejoinder and sur-rejoinder from both sides. The matter was argued, reserved for orders on December 16, 2024, and judgment pronounced on August 6, 2025.
Core Dispute
The central question was whether “Dream Girl 2” infringed the plaintiff’s copyright by copying the expression, sequence, and characters of his script, or breached confidence by misusing confidentially shared information.
The plaintiff alleged substantial similarities in plot and situations, claiming access was established through prior sharing with Defendants Nos. 1 and 4. The defendants countered that gender disguise and financial hardship themes are stock scenarios not protected by copyright, and that the works were distinct in setting, tone, and narrative.
Discussion on Judgments
The plaintiff and defendants cited multiple precedents including R.G. Anand v. M/s. Delux Films and Mansoob Haider v. Yashraj Films. Defendants argued for the application of holistic comparison tests, rejection of dissected analysis, and the necessity of precisely identifying confidential material in breach of confidence claims.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice R.I. Chagla found that the script’s alleged originality relied on unprotectable elements like gender disguise and financial hardship. Comparing the works holistically, he concluded they were materially different — the plaintiff’s script being Bollywood-centric, the defendants’ film being a small-town romance.
For breach of confidence, the plaintiff failed to identify specific confidential information or prove misuse. The court noted procedural delays and persistence in pursuing a meritless claim, justifying the imposition of costs.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the interim application, refused the injunction, and awarded costs of Rs. 2 lakhs (Rs. 1 lakh each to Defendants Nos. 1 and 5) payable within four weeks.
Law Settled in This Case
The judgment reinforces that copyright protects expressions, not ideas, themes, or stock elements. It also clarifies that breach of confidence claims require:
- Precise identification of confidential, original information
- Information not in the public domain
- Proof of unauthorized use
Frivolous claims in commercial IP suits may attract costs under the Commercial Courts Act to prevent wastage of judicial resources.
Case Details
- Case Title: Ashim Kumar Bagchi Vs Balaji Telefilms Limited and Ors.
- Date of Order: 06th August, 2025
- Case Number: Comm IP Suit No. 322 of 2023
- Court: Bombay High Court
- Judge: R.I. Chagla J.
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor – Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539
FAQ – Ashim Kumar Bagchi vs Balaji Telefilms (Dream Girl 2 Case)
What was the Ashim Kumar Bagchi vs Balaji Telefilms case about?
The case involved allegations of copyright infringement and breach of confidence, where Ashim Kumar Bagchi claimed that his original script, “The Show Must Go On”, was unlawfully copied in the making of the film “Dream Girl 2”.
What did the Bombay High Court decide in the Dream Girl 2 copyright case?
The court dismissed the infringement claim, holding that the plaintiff’s script was based on unprotectable ideas like gender disguise and financial hardship. It found no substantial similarities between the works.
Why did the court reject the breach of confidence claim?
Justice R.I. Chagla ruled that the plaintiff failed to identify specific confidential information or prove misuse. The shared themes and elements were deemed common in the film industry.
What legal principle did the judgment reinforce?
The ruling reaffirmed that copyright protects only the expression of ideas—not ideas, stock themes, or general concepts. It also emphasized the need for precise identification of confidential material in breach of confidence claims.
What costs were imposed in the Ashim Kumar Bagchi case?
The court ordered the plaintiff to pay Rs. 2 lakhs in total, with Rs. 1 lakh each to Defendants Nos. 1 and 5, for pursuing a meritless claim.
How does this case affect future copyright disputes in India?
The judgment sets a precedent for applying holistic comparison tests in copyright disputes and discourages frivolous intellectual property suits through the imposition of costs.
