Back
RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
RDB & Company (Hindu Undivided Family) – Appellant
Versus
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.
1. This is a suit for infringement of copyright.
2. Briefly, the petitioners no 1 and 2 claim to be the owners of the copyright in ten separate cinematographic films namely ‘Nishijapon’, ‘Bibar’, ‘Tapasya’, ‘Achin Pakhi’, ‘Charulata’, ‘Mahanagar’, ‘Mahapurush’, ‘Joy Baba Felunath’ and ‘Nayak’ (the films) which are all immemorial Bengali films.
3. R.D. Bansal was a renowned film producer and had funded films directed by Satyajit Ray. Six of the ten films which form the subject matter of this suit were directed by Satyajit Ray and produced by R.D. Bansal. The petitioner no.1 (HUF) is the producer and owner of the copyright in the films. The petitioner no. 2 is also the legal heir of R.D. Bansal and the Karta of the petitioner no. 1 (HUF). The petitioner no.2 is also the producer of the remaining four non Satyajit Ray Films.
4. By an agreement dated 4 July 2017, the petitioner no. 1 had granted the petitioner no. 3 a license for telecasting the films for a period of eight years through wire and wireless channels exclusively within the territory of India only [excluding through Lok Sabha TV and the national network of India (Doordarshan)]. Significantly, te
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a plaintiff to prove their right to copyright ownership and exploitation rights, as well as the necessity to comply with the pr....
The court affirmed that copyright rights must be explicitly defined, and the authorization for theatrical and satellite exhibition are separate, concluding the plaintiff could not claim satellite rig....
The burden of proving ownership of copyright lies with the plaintiff, and failure to disprove the defendant's contentions can lead to dismissal of the suit.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the party alleging undue influence to prove the same, the consideration of inadequacy in determining consent, and the interp....
Ownership of copyright, validity of assignment agreements, and entitlement to relief of declaration and damages under the Copyright Act, 1957.
The court ruled that the defendants' exclusive rights to the Telugu film, including dubbing, did not infringe the plaintiff's distinct rights under the Copyright Act regarding Hindi remake and dubbin....
Producer being author of a cinematograph film has all rights in film as conferred under Section 14(d)(iii) of Act, including right to dub and subtitle, subject, however, to any restrictive condition(....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
