The appellant, Sony Pictures Television UK Rights Limited, held an exclusive licence to the copyright and intellectual property rights in the television show format known as "Dragon's Den", originally created in Japan as "Money Tigers". The format features entrepreneurs pitching business ideas to investors in exchange for equity. The first respondent, C Media Africa, produced a television show called "Simba Savannah" which the second respondent, Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation, broadcast. The appellant claimed that Simba Savannah was an unauthorized adaptation of Dragon's Den, copying its format including: the title structure (predator name + location), studio set-up, investors seated in a row, entrepreneurs pitching their products, investors declaring "I'm in" or "I'm out", and post-pitch interviews. The appellant sent cease and desist letters in August 2016 and December 2016, which the respondents refused to comply with. The appellant applied for a permanent interdict to stop production and broadcasting of Simba Savannah, claiming copyright infringement and passing off.
The appeal was dismissed with costs on the ordinary scale.
A television show "format" - comprising the general structure, style, presentation methods, catchphrases, and staging arrangements - does not constitute an "audio-visual work" under Section 2 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act [Chapter 26:05]. An audio-visual work requires "a recording or fixation on any medium from which a moving image, together with any sounds associated with the image, may be produced". A format, being essentially a concept or idea about how to arrange and present a television program, falls within the categories excluded from copyright protection by Section 10(5) of the Act, which excludes "ideas, procedures, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles" from copyright eligibility. Section 128 of the Act provides that no copyright exists except by virtue of the Act or another enactment, meaning international conventions like the Berne Convention have no direct application except to the extent domesticated in Zimbabwean legislation. For a passing off claim to succeed, the plaintiff must prove: (1) reputation or goodwill in the business, goods, or services; (2) misrepresentation by the defendant that creates confusion about trade source or business connection; and (3) damage to the plaintiff's reputation. Formats, lacking the certainty and fixation required for copyright protection, cannot form the basis of either copyright infringement or passing off claims.
The Court noted with apparent disapproval the appellant's vacillation and conflation between describing its claim as relating to a "format", a "television program", and an "audio-visual work", suggesting this indicated the claim may not have been carefully formulated with reference to the Act's specific provisions. The Court observed that the subsequent emphasis on the Berne Convention appeared to reflect a realization that the claim as pleaded could not succeed under the Act. The Court commented that even if Green v Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand [1989] All ER 1056 were not considered, the result would be the same, though the Court noted remarkable similarities between that case and the present matter. The Court stated it was unnecessary to consider whether the requirements for granting a permanent interdict were satisfied, given the failure to establish copyright protection in the format. The Court applied the principle from Chikura v Al Shams SC 17/17 that it is not for the court to sift through arguments to find possible valid grounds or to make a case for a party - parties must clearly identify the legal basis for their claims. Regarding costs, the Court found no basis for awarding costs on the higher attorney-client scale sought by the appellant.
This case establishes important principles in Zimbabwean intellectual property law regarding the limits of copyright protection. It clarifies that television show "formats" - being the general structure, style, and manner of presentation - do not constitute "audio-visual works" eligible for copyright protection under the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act. The judgment reinforces that copyright protection extends only to specific works that meet statutory definitions, not to abstract concepts, ideas, or formats. The case demonstrates the strict interpretation of Section 128 of the Act, which provides that no copyright exists except by virtue of the Act itself or another enactment, limiting reliance on international conventions not fully domesticated into Zimbabwean law. The judgment also clarifies the requirements for passing off claims in the context of television programming, requiring proof of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage. This decision has implications for the television and entertainment industry in Zimbabwe, establishing that general program formats and concepts remain in the public domain and can be adapted locally without infringing copyright, provided specific protected works are not copied.