Mrf Limited. v. Metro Tyres Limited.

When two competitors in the same industry release advertisements that feel eerily similar, the instinct is to cry foul. But copyright law does not protect ideas, vibes, or industry conventions. It protects the specific expression captured in a work. The showdown between MRF Limited and Metro Tyres Limited before the Delhi High Court is a masterclass in where the line is drawn between inspiration and infringement, and a cautionary tale for any founder who assumes that a 'similar-looking' competitor ad automatically means a legal win.

MRF Limited, one of India's most recognised tyre manufacturers, claimed that Metro Tyres Limited had infringed its copyright by producing an advertisement that copied the substance of MRF's original cinematic work. MRF argued that Metro's commercial was a substantial and material reproduction of its own ad, and sought an interim injunction to halt the rival campaign. The dispute centred on two pieces of cinematograph content competing for attention in the same crowded marketplace, with MRF positioned as the aggrieved senior player and Metro as the alleged copycat.

MRF's core argument was straightforward: the two advertisements shared enough visual and structural DNA to constitute a copy. The company urged the court to look at the overall feel, sequence, and presentation of the films, contending that Metro's ad borrowed the very essence of MRF's creative expression. Metro Tyres, on the other hand, pushed back on the notion that any copying had occurred at all, arguing that the two works were fundamentally different in their substance and kernel. The legal friction therefore boiled down to a single, decisive question: were the two advertisements substantially and materially similar in their core expression, or only superficially alike?

The Delhi High Court applied the well-established R.G. Anand test, which requires courts to look beyond surface-level resemblances and assess whether the defendant has copied the substance and kernel of the plaintiff's work. After careful examination, the court concluded that the two advertisements were neither substantially nor materially similar in substance or kernel. Because the plaintiff could not clear this fundamental threshold, the court dismissed MRF's application for an interim injunction, ruling in favour of Metro Tyres. The decision reinforced that the R.G. Anand test remains the governing standard for evaluating similarity in cinematograph works.

For founders, marketers, and creative teams, the lesson is sharp and practical: in copyright disputes over films and advertisements, courts will dig beneath the surface. Borrowing a genre, a mood, or a general visual style is not infringement. To win, you must show that the rival copied the actual substance and kernel of your specific expression. Before launching a campaign that 'feels inspired' by a competitor's work, invest in original creative development and document your process. And if you believe your ad has been copied, be prepared to prove similarity at the level of substance, not just at the level of appearance.