What is doctrine of “spring board” in copyright law?

One of the well known doctrines used
for the purpose is the “spring board” doctrine. It may well be that the defendant
uses the plaintiff's idea as a spring board and then devises some additional
material to produce a work. If the original idea was conveyed by the plaintiff to the
defendant as a matter of confidence and the defendant uses it as a spring board
to develop his own work, in an appropriate case, the defendant may still be liable
for breach of confidence. This was explained by our Court in Zee Telefilms
(supra), as follows :
                                                                                                                         
“12. With regard to the requirement of form and degree of
development of information or ideas, learned counsel for the
plaintiffs placed strong reliance on Seager v. Copydex Ltd.,
(1967) 2 All ER 415. In this case the plaintiff, in the course of
discussion with the defendants of a carpet grip described as
'the germ of the idea' for a different form of carpet grip which
the plaintiff had devised. Later the defendants developed and
marketed the carpet grip which was unwittingly based on the
plaintiff's alternate type of grip. The Court of Appeal concluded
that the plaintiff's idea was 'the springboard' which enabled the
defendants to devise their own grip and held that the
defendants were liable for breach of confidence. The learned
counsel also referred to a judgment of Megarry J in Coco v.
A.N. Clark (Engineering) Ltd. (1969) RPC 41 where springboard
doctrine was elaborately discussed. He also referred to a
judgment in Franchy v. Franchy (Extension Ch D), (1967) 5
Reports of Patent and Design and Trade Mark Cases 149
where Cross J. observed:-
"Clearly a claim that the disclosure of some information would
be a breach of confidence is not to be defeated simply by
proving that there are other people in the world who know the
facts in question besides the man as to whom it is said that his
disclosure would be a breach of confidence and those to whom
he has disclosed them." ”
Lastly, it must be noted that at the prima facie stage, the Plaintiff is
not required to prove these matters. What he needs is to address them and show
that he has a seriously arguable case in relation to each of them.

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 785 OF 2015
IN
SUIT (L) NO. 251 OF 2015
Beyond Dreams Entertainment Pvt.Ltd. & Ors.
vs.
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. & Anr.

CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.
25 MARCH 2015

Print Page

Supreme Court: Stamp duty is to be collected as per use of property on the date of purchase

 We have already held that it is the grievance of the respondents that the orders were passed by the Additional Collector on a public holiday. Regarding the merits though the Collector, Lucknow made a surprise site inspection, there is no record to show that all the details such as measurement, extent, boundaries were noted in the presence of the respondents who purchased the property. It is also explained that the plot in question is not a corner plot as stated in the impugned order as boundaries of the plot mentioned in the freehold deed executed by Nazool Officer and in the sale deed 

dated 16.04.2003 only on one side there is a road. It is also demonstrated that at the time of execution of the sale deed, the house in question was used for residential purpose and it is asserted that the stamp duty was paid based on the position and user of the building on the date of the purchase. The impugned order of the High Court shows that it was not seriously disputed about the nature and user of the building, namely, residential purpose on the date of the purchase. Merely because the property is being used for commercial purpose at the later point of time may not be a relevant criterion for assessing the value for the purpose of stamp duty. The nature of user is relatable to the date of purchase and it is relevant for the purpose of calculation of stamp duty. 

Supreme Court of India

State Of U.P. & Ors. vs Ambrish Tandon & Anr. on 20 January, 2012

Author: P Sathasivam

Bench: P. Sathasivam, J. Chelameswar

Print Page