Back
Amazon Prime Scores Early Win: Delhi HC Blocks Drishyam 3 OTT Deals in Franchise Rights Clash
In a swift , the has handed Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd (operator of Amazon Prime Video in India) a preliminary victory against Mohanlal's production house, Aashirvad Cinemas. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar restrained the producers from licensing non-linear internet-based (OTT) rights for the upcoming Drishyam 3 to any third party, citing a strong under . The order, passed on , comes amid heated negotiations gone sour over a 2020 licensing pact.
From Blockbuster Deal to Courtroom Showdown
The saga traces back to a Master Video Licence Agreement dated , between Amazon and Aashirvad Cinemas, producers of the hit Malayalam franchise starring Mohanlal. A key provision—the " Amazon Option " clause—gave Amazon preferential rights for future Drishyam titles. Under its terms:
- Producers must first notify Amazon and negotiate exclusively for 60 days.
- If no deal, upon a third-party offer, producers notify Amazon, which gets 10 days to match.
Amazon alleges it was notified of a third-party offer on , promptly exercised its match right, and entered good-faith talks, exchanging draft terms. But on , Aashirvad emailed to unilaterally end negotiations, claiming Amazon's rights had " fallen away " and they'd pursue alternatives. Amazon fired back with public notices warning industry stakeholders, prompting sharp rebuttals from the producers.
Fearing irreversible third-party deals that could scuttle arbitration remedies—especially with whispers of simultaneous theatrical-OTT releases violating norms—Amazon rushed to court under Section 9 for interim protection.
Amazon's Pitch: Contract Betrayal and Looming Harm
, leading Amazon's charge, hammered the breach: the match right created binding obligations, making Aashirvad's termination
"wholly contrary to the contractual framework."
Key fears included:
- : Third-party rights would render arbitration futile.
- Triple test met : from ongoing negotiations; against exploitation; from altered terms/timelines.
Amazon narrowed its ask to blocking OTT rights alienation (prayer clause b), avoiding a full theatrical ban at this stage. Notably, Aashirvad's counsel was absent, leaving the court to weigh unopposed submissions and documents.
The Judge's Lens: Arbitration Safeguards in Spotlight
Justice Shankar meticulously parsed Section 9, emphasizing its role in preserving arbitration's fruitfulness without delving into merits. He invoked the Supreme Court's blueprint in ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel (India) Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd. (2022) :
“ is granted in aid of final relief. The object is to ensure protection of the property... and/or otherwise ensure that the arbitration proceedings do not become .”
The court ticked the boxes—
,
,
—noting third-party creations would
"tilt the equities against the Petitioner."
Key Observations from the Bench
-
On urgency
:
"Applications for are inherently applications which are required to be disposed of urgently... Unless... decided expeditiously, ... may be caused."
-
Contractual sting
: The producers' email asserted rights had "fallen away," a stance the court flagged as
"wholly untenable and contrary to the contractual arrangement."
- Relief granted : " Till the next date of hearing, the Respondents are restrained from creating or otherwise dealing with any third-party rights in respect of the non-linear internet-based rights in the film tentatively titled “Drishyam 3” ."
Next Frame: Notice Issued, Clocks Ticking
Notice goes to Aashirvad via all modes, returnable , with tight reply/rejoinder deadlines. This interim shield protects Amazon's franchise stake—spanning original Malayalam and dubs in Telugu, Kannada, Tamil, Hindi—while arbitration looms.
For Bollywood-South crossover watchers, this underscores OTT goldmines' legal minefields: option clauses aren't optional. As news ripples (IANS, Mathrubhumi), Drishyam 3 's digital destiny hangs in balance—will producers match Amazon's resolve?
