No one can claim copyright over Cricket: Delhi High Court refuses to stay Legends League Cricket

No one can claim copyright on the game of cricket and there can be no copyright on the evolution of the game from five-day test matches to the recent format of T-20 cricket either, the Delhi High Court observed as it refused to stay the staging of the upcoming Legends League Cricket tournament [Samir Kasal v Prashant Mehta and Ors]..Single-judge Justice Asha Menon, however, directed the league organisers to maintain clear accounts of their earnings and expenditure in respect to matches and file the same before the Court within one month of completion of tournament.The Court also issued summons to the defendants, asking them to file their written submissions within 30 days. The plaintiff was asked to file replications within 30 days thereafter and the case will be listed for further consideration before joint registrar on April 26..The Legends League Cricket is set to start from Thursday with three teams; Indian Maharajas, Asian Lions and World Giants taking part in the competition.Retired cricket players including Yuvraj Singh, Virender Sehwag, Shahid Afridi, Shoaib Akhtar as well as Kevin Pieterson, Jacque Kallis and several others are scheduled to play in the matches which will be held at Al Amerat Cricket Ground in Oman..The present case was filed by one Samir Kasal who in his suit claimed that the tournament was his brainchild and he had discussed it with the respondent, Prashant Mehta who then went on to start the league along with other defendants.Kasal told the Court that it was his idea to have a tournament of retired players in a two-innings format where each team would bat for 10 overs in each innings. He further argued that it was his idea to hold the matches in places where there is a large India population. Therefore, the Legends League Cricket which is scheduled to be held in Oman has been stolen from him, it was contended..Justice Menon, however, held that the only fundamental similarity between the applicant’s idea and the league being organised is that both involve the game of cricket and no one can claim a copyright over cricket. “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 the latest of T-20 Matches/One-Dayers. Any such permutations and combinations would involve “innings” and “overs”. It would also involve selection of venue and the duration and length of the matches. Finally, the players are always selected for playing in particular matches,” the Court said..Justice Menon further observed that the idea of a ten-over cricket match is not new and was introduced in 1997 in New Zealand while retired cricketers have been playing matches all around the world and therefore, that too, is not an original idea of the plaintiff.“Test matches have also been held in countries that do not play cricket. The participation of the Indian diaspora in various cricket venues, particularly, the Middle-East, is also common knowledge. Thus, none of the features of the concept of the plaintiff reflect original thought,” the Court opined.It further said,““League matches were held in 2015. IPL has been in existence since 2007. The matches in which retired legendary cricketers have played for various reasons, including public causes, have been ongoing for long. To say that because the plaintiff conceptualized a league match with retired cricketers in a T-10 Test Format to be played at venues where there is Indian diaspora, and that being his idea, had become his exclusive right, is to stretch it too far to claim a right to seek an injunction against the Legends League Cricket tournament organized by the defendants.”.The Court also held that even if the plaintiff’s contention that his combination is exclusive is accepted, there are enough differences to establish that the format being played in the league is not a copy of his idea.Finally, the Court said that the purpose of conducting matches is to obtain monetary benefit and therefore if the matches are not held, the defendants, players, sponsors, media partners and the public at large would suffer losses that cannot be compensated..Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, along with advcoates Rashmi Chopra, Srivats Kaushal, Priyadeep, Humraz Singh, Tejaswini, Vatsala Chaturvedi appeared for the plaintiff.The defendants were represented by Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayar and Saurabh Kirpal along with advocates Vineet Malhotra, Vishal Gohri, Saurabh Seth, AK Bhardwaj ,Shivanshu Bhardwaj, Karan Gautam and Shubhendu Kaushik appeared for respondents..[Read Order]