2023:DHC:2796 21.10.There is no statutory provision in India which envisages protection of the rights claimed by the plaintiffs in the present suit. The player identifiers claimed to be owned by the plaintiffs are in the nature of factual information not protectable under any law in India. 21.11.Striker has commissioned independent artist to create original artworks based on the cricketers sought to be depicted. The defendant no.2 has not used any real photographs/images of the cricketers. The aforesaid artworks used on the Striker platform are original works and are entitled to copyright protection under the Copyright Act, 1957. 21.12.The plaintiffs have concealed that as far back as in September, 2022, the senior executives of the plaintiffs have been in contact with the senior officials of the defendants regarding the Striker platform. In this regard, the defendants have placed on record WhatsApp chats between the said employees. Even otherwise, the defendant no.2 had launched an extensive advertising and marketing campaign before launching its platform Striker, starting from August, 2022. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs that they became aware of the defendant no.2 only in January, 2023 is false. 21.13.The prayers in the interim application go far beyond the pleadings and are intended to shut down the business of OFS platforms. 21.14.Balance of convenience is against the grant of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs as an injunction will bring to halt the entire business of the defendants. 21.15.The present suit has been filed intentionally just before the WPL and IPL scheduled to be held at the end of March, 2023, when the OFS business would reach its peak. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT BANSAL CS(COMM) 108/2023 Signing Date:26.04.2023 Page 12 of 51 13:09:16