But in handing down his decision on Thursday, Justice John Nicholas said Seven did have a "reasonably arguable" case for copyright infringement, raising doubt as to whether the show will reach a second season.

On Tuesday, Seven attempted to have The Hotplate immediately suspended from being broadcast by seeking the urgent injunction.

It argued that the show was a rip-off "attack" on the commercial success of ratings-winner My Kitchen Rules, claiming that it bore "remarkable similarity" to the ratings hit.

This included the use of "stereotyped couples" as competitors such as "the gay couple", "the father-and-son team" and "the unexpected friends".

Then there was the escalating "sense of jeopardy" which accompanied the preparation of food and the fact that the results, good or bad, were then served in the competitors' "private domain".

Then there was the familiar format of cooking challenges interspersed with cut-away interviews.

But Nine's barrister, Sydney silk Bruce McClintock, SC, said such characteristics were a staple of the reality TV cooking show genre and too generic to breach copyright.

In key respects, such as the use of professional rather than amateur chefs, the shows were distinct, he said.

On Thursday Justice Nicholas agreed, describing this as "one obvious difference" between the shows.

"The dramatic effect achieved in Hotplate through the use of professional restaurateurs providing meals chosen from their restaurant's menus is arguably different from what one experiences in MKR. The fact that the contestants in Hotplate are restaurateurs (many of whom are highly experienced professionals) is a circumstance around which much of the dialogue is constructed.

Nine also argued that granting an injunction would give Seven an unfair competitive advantage, costing his client millions in advertising revenue and hundreds of thousands of viewers, some of whom would simply switch to Seven's own new cooking competition Restaurant Revolution.

Justice Nicholas accepted this, saying that "it would be difficult for Nine to re-establish the program's momentum after it was abruptly halted by injunction and then 'shelved' for however many months it takes to determine the proceeding and any subsequent appeal".

He ultimately found that Seven did not have "a particularly strong case" paving the way for the remainder of the show's first season to be broadcast.

In the end Justice Nicholas agreed, refusing to grant the injunction ahead of a hearing on the matter, finding that Seven did not have "a particularly strong case".

It means that the remainder of the show's first season can continue to be broadcast.

However, the judge acknowledged that Seven's case was "arguable" and that, therefore, the full hearing of the matter should proceed soon.

"I do think this is a case where, if Seven wishes to proceed in this way there ought to be an early final hearing at least at the trial level so that the matter's brought to conclusion before there's any second season," he said.