Interim injunction refused where sports format lacks substantial reproduction of the protected literary expression.

The Plaintiff, a professional golfer, conceptualized a unique golf format titled "SHOT SQUAD LEAGUE" (later "THE SMASH LEAGUE"), featuring specific team structures, specialized player roles (Tee, Fairway, Short Game, Putting), limited clubs, and designated drop zones.

The Plaintiff obtained copyright registration for this as a "Literary Work" in 2019.

In June 2024, the Defendants launched the "IGPL FLASH GOLF / SMASH FORMAT," which the Plaintiff alleged was a substantial reproduction of his copyrighted game mechanics and literary work.

The Plaintiff further alleged a breach of confidence, claiming the format was shared with certain Defendants under an expectation of collaboration.

The Defendants contended that the format was merely an adaptation of "Alternate Shot" golf and that game rules/sports formats are not copyrightable under the "Doctrine of Merger."

During the proceedings, the Defendants unilaterally undertook to stop using the mark "SMASH," rendering the trademark prayer moot.

The court applied the "Idea-Expression Dichotomy" as established in R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, which holds that copyright does not protect ideas, systems, or factual themes, but only the specific form and arrangement of their expression.

It utilized the "Doctrine of Merger" from Mattel, Inc. v. Jayant Agarwalla, which stipulates that when an idea can only be expressed in a limited number of ways, the expression merges with the idea and becomes unprotectable.

The court also referenced Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak regarding the "modicum of creativity" required for originality.

The court referenced Samir Kansal v. Prashant Mehta, which established that no proprietary right exists over the evaluation or formats of well-known sports like cricket or golf.

The court performed a granular comparative analysis between the Plaintiff’s copyrighted work and the Defendants’ "Impugned Sheet".

Regarding team play, the court noted that "Foursomes" or "Alternate Shot" is a standard rule (Rule 22) of the R&A Rules of Golf, making it common property rather than an original expression.

On specialized roles and shot assignments, the court found substantive differences: the Plaintiff required specific "specialists," whereas the Defendants allowed any player to be "pre-assigned" to specific shots.

The court observed that elements like "Time Keeping" and "Drop Zones" were either standard to golf or implemented differently by the Defendants (e.g., the Defendants used a strict 120-second limit per hole while the Plaintiff used general pace-of-play tracking).

Consequently, the court determined that the Defendants did not copy a "substantial part" of the Plaintiff's work.

On confidentiality, the court held that since the Plaintiff had already conducted a public tournament in Chandigarh in 2020, the game mechanics had entered the public domain, extinguishing any claim of secrecy or breach of confidence.

It held that while the Plaintiff’s work met the "modicum of creativity" standard for registration, there was no prima facie evidence of unauthorized copying or substantial reproduction by the Defendants.

The court further held that balance of convenience favored the Defendants as sports formats generally fall outside the scope of exclusive copyright.

The court directed the Defendants to remain bound by their undertaking to use the mark "FLASH" instead of "SMASH" during the pendency of the suit.