SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Bom) 194

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.J. Kathawalla, J.
Shivani Tibrewala - Appellant
Vs.
Rajat Mukherjee - Respondent
Notice of Motion No. 568 of 2017, COMIP No. 665 of 2017
Decided On : 15-01-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Rashmin Khandekar, Advocate, V.D. Shetty, Advocate, Bimal Rajasekhar, Advocate, Birendra Saraf, Advocate, Sutapa Saha, Advocate

In order to establish copyright infringement, the Plaintiff must show that the Defendant's work is a substantial copy of the Plaintiff's work. The test for substantial similarity is whether an ordinary observer would find the two works to be substantially similar.

Headnote:

COPYRIGHT - INFRINGEMENT - FILM - SIMILARITY - SUBSTANTIAL COPYING - COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 - SECTIONS 13, 14, 51, 55, 62, 64.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, a well-known writer/director, created the script of the play 'The Laboratory' in 2007. The play was performed on numerous occasions and was well-received by the public and experts. Plaintiff also wrote a script for a cinematographic film based on the play, which was circulated to various people in the film/theatre industry. Plaintiff claimed copyright protection in both the script of the play and the script of the cinematographic film. In 2017, Plaintiff came across the trailer of Defendant's film 'Umeed' and noticed striking similarities with both the script of the play and the script of the cinematographic film. Plaintiff filed a suit for infringement of copyright and obtained an ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendants from making, broadcasting, distributing, and telecasting the impugned film.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Defendants' film was not a substantial copy of the Plaintiff's work. The Court found that the two works had a common theme of unethical drug testing, but the treatment of the subject and the fleshing out of the story and characters were very different. The Court also found that the similarities between the two works were not substantial and did not amount to copyright infringement. The Court further held that the Defendants had independently created their work and had not copied from the Plaintiff's work.

Issues: Whether the Defendants' film 'Umeed' infringed the copyright of the Plaintiff's script of the play 'The Laboratory' and the script of the cinematographic film based on the play.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied the following principles in reaching its decision: * Copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. * In order to establish copyright infringement, the Plaintiff must show that the Defendant's work is a substantial copy of the Plaintiff's work. * The test for substantial similarity is whether an ordinary observer would find the two works to be substantially similar. * The Court must consider the similarities and differences between the two works as a whole, not just in isolation. * The Court must also consider whether the Defendant had access to the Plaintiff's work and whether the Defendant's work was independently created.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and vacated the ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendants from releasing their film 'Umeed'. The Court held that the Defendants' film was not a substantial copy of the Plaintiff's work and that the Defendants had independently created their work.

JUDGMENT :

S.J. Kathawalla, J.

The Plaintiff has filed the present suit alleging infringement of copyright by the Defendants in the Plaintiffs script of the play 'The Laboratory, the script of a cinematographic film based on the script of the play, the revised script/refined version of the script of the cinematographic film and the Plaintiffs further work towards a screenplay running into 90 pages which has been filed in a sealed cover in the Court. These are hereinafter referred to as "the Plaintiffs work".

2. The case of the Plaintiff as crystalized in the Written Submissions is that the Defendants film "Umeed" is a substantial reproduction and/or an altered copy of the Plaintiffs works and violates the Plaintiff’s copyright in her literary works. It is the Plaintiffs contention that if one were to read the play script and the film story and thereafter watch the Plaintiff’s play and the Defendant’s film, one would walk away with the unmistakable impression that the Defendants film is nothing but a substantial and material copy of the Plaintiff’s works.

3. The Plaintiff has filed the present Notice of Motion in the Suit seeking restraint on the release of the film produced by the Defendants.

4. The brief facts as set out by the Plaintiff and relevant for the purpose of deciding the present Notice of Motion are as under :

    4.1. The Plaintiff is a well-known writer/director who has been actively involved in the film industry since 2000. The Plaintiff has written / directed significant works on topics of public interest such as unethical drug trials, suicide and mental health, breast cancer awareness, and Alzheimerfs. The Plaintiff has set out some of the plays written and/or directed and/or produced by the Plaintiff, in the Plaint. The Plaintiff has also written feature films, documentary films and television serials, which have been set out in the Plaint.

4.2. The plays written and/or directed and/or produced by the Plaintiff have been performed all over India and in some prominent theatres and have also featured at numerous performing art festivals.

4.3. The Plaintiff created the script of the play 'The Laboratory in the year 2007. According to the Plaintiff, the script of the play was original and novel. The salient features of the script of the play are referred to in paragraph 10 of the Plaint, which reads as under :

"(i) The play has the following characters :

(a) A young idealistic doctor who is gutted about the fact that she is used as a pawn in the unethical clinical trials racket prevalent in the pharmaceutical industry. She decides to take on a multinational pharmaceutical corporation and mounts a trial against it.

(b) A fearless journalist-cum-reporter who is the boyfriend of the protagonist. He helps her to investigate the dark underbelly of unethical clinical trials.

(c) A ruthless, corrupt, profit mongering CEO of a multinational pharmaceutical corporation who is behind the unethical drug trials.

(d) A mentor of the protagonist who is hand in glove with the multinational pharmaceutical corporation indulging in unethical drug trials.

(e) The protagonist's mother who loses her life in an unethical drug trial in a quest to earn a modest amount of money to sustain the protagonist's education and pay her medical college fees.

(ii) "The Laboratory", with its tagline "What if someone you loved was used as a guinea pig in a drug trial ?" is a medical thriller revolving around unethical drug trials carried out on Indians using them as guinea pigs, and the importance of informed consent in a country which is largely illiterate.

(iii) The protagonist comes from a poor family.

(iv) She aspires to become a doctor.

(v) Her mother (who is perfectly healthy) without the knowledge of the protagonist volunteers for a drug trial by a multinational pharmaceutical corporation to earn money to pay for her daughter's medical college fees. The mother

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top