Editing Openai/6924739c-2300-800e-9743-65c152c213f1 (section)

===== What it held =====
* EBC publishes Supreme Court Cases (SCC) law reports. Defendants produced CD-ROM law databases alleged to have copied SCC’s materials.
* The Indian Supreme Court: - Agreed that headnotes, editorial notes, and some formatting/structural edits are copyright-protected; - Rejected copyright in the raw judgment text itself (public domain), but held that some copy-editing and structuring can reach the originality threshold; - Adopted the CCH “skill and judgment” standard, rejecting both pure sweat-of-the-brow and a high creativity threshold.

Relevance
* Factually very close: a law-report publisher vs. a digital legal research/database provider accused of using the publisher’s edited judgments and headnotes in electronic products.
* The court drew a line between public-domain judicial text and copyrightable editorial enhancements (headnotes, footnotes, paragraphing, introductions), then limited what could be freely reused.
* That structure maps closely onto arguments about what parts of Westlaw content ROSS could ingest, and whether copying for a competitor research platform is infringing.