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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
JA Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Sithara Entertainment - Respondent
CS(COMM) 191 of 2022
Decided On : 11-07-2022




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 dubbing rights.

Headnote:(A) Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 13, 14, 17, 18, and 51 - Dispute over copyright infringement concerning remake and dubbing rights of the Malayalam film 'Ayyappanum Kozhiyum' in Hindi - The plaintiff claimed exclusive rights to remake and dub, while defendants contended that they held distinct, limited rights for the Telugu remake only - The court affirmed that the defendants had the right to dub and exploit the Telugu film, concluding that the plaintiff's complaints of alleged infringement were unfounded. (Paras 44, 46, 52)

(B) Copyright Assignment - Distinction between rights of different parties - The court emphasized the principle that rights assigned in an agreement are specific and cannot be broadly interpreted beyond the explicit terms defined therein. (Paras 10, 40)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from releasing a Telugu film dubbed in Hindi, alleging infringement of copyright in Hindi remake rights assigned under an agreement with the original film's producers on 13.05.2020. (Paras 1-4)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the rights conferred on the defendants were limited to Telugu language only and their actions did not infringe on the plaintiff's distinct rights as assigned under their agreement. (Paras 44-45)

Issues: The main issues were the interpretation of assigned rights regarding remake and dubbing in different languages, and the alleged infringement of copyright by the defendants. (Paras 8-9)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the right to communicate a film to the public, including dubbing, rests with the copyright owner, which in this case was determined to be the defendants concerning the Telugu remake - the plaintiff's claims of infringement were without merit. (Paras 46-48)

Result: The ex parte ad interim injunction granted to the plaintiff was vacated. (Para 52)

Table of Content
1. plaintiff seeks copyright protection. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. plaintiff asserts exclusive remake rights. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. defendant no. 1 argues its rights in telugu remake. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. court examines provisions of copyright act. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
5. court analyzes assignment rights. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
6. court assesses plaintiff's claim of infringement. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
7. court refutes plaintiff's claims. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
8. injunction vacated; plaintiff's claims dismissed. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54)

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J.

I.A. 4813/2022 (under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, by Plaintiff) 6039/2022 (under Order 39 Rule 4, CPC, by Defendant No.1), 6078/2022 (under order 39 Rule 4, CPC, by Defendant No.2)

1. Present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining Defendants No. 1 and 2 and all others acting on their behalf from making, producing, exhibiting or communicating to the public the suit film (as described hereinafter) or any part thereof in any manner, including but not limited to theatres, television, OTT platforms, etc., so as to infringe Plaintiff's copyright in respect of Remake and Dubbing Rights of the Malayalam film in Hindi language.

2. Case of the Plaintiff as set out in the plaint is that in or around March, 2020, Plaintiff's creative team came across a Malayalam film `Ayyappanum Kozhiyum', which was released on 07.02.2020 and was a huge success commercially. Plaintiff decided to remake the film in Hindi language and being a commercially lucrative venture, Plaintiff approached the producer of the film, i.e., Defendant No. 3 and Late Kovakattu (Defendant No. 4 herein is the wife of Late Kovakattu) and sought assignment of Hindi Remake Rights in the Malayalam film.

3. Pursuant to negotiations, an Assignment Agreement was executed on 13.05.2020, between Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3 and Late Kovakattu, under which Hindi Remake Rights in the Malayalam film were assigned to the Plaintiff. It is averred that under the said Agreement, Plaintiff was assigned the exclusive, perpetual and irrevocable `Remake and Dubbing' rights, to be exercised in all modes, mediums and formats. The rights assigned, to the extent relevant for the present case included: (a) the sole right to make a new cinematograph film based on the Malayalam film in Hindi language; (b) right to dub the Malayalam film as well as the Hindi remake in any or all languages; and (c) right to subtitle in any language for any purpose through any media. Around July, 2020 Plaintiff commenced pre-production of the Hindi Remake in accordance with rights granted under the Agreement dated 13.05.2020.

4. On or around 04.03.2022, Plaintiff came across a trailer of a Telugu film on YouTube, titled `Bheemla Nayak' (hereinafter referred to as the `suit film'), dubbed in Hindi, though the release date was not announced. Since this indicated a potential infringement of Plaintiff's rights, Plaintiff immediately enquired from Defendant No. 3 about the nature of rights assigned to Defendant No. 1, i.e., the producer of the suit film. Defendant No. 3, in response, clarified that only limited rights had been assigned to Defendant No. 1 to remake the Malayalam film in Telugu language and also supplied a copy of Assignment Agreement dated 18.03.2020, executed between Defendant No. 3 and Defendant No. 1.

5. Plaintiff was categorically informed that Defendant No. 1 wanted to expand the scope of rights under the Agreement dated 18.03.2020 and had circulated an amended version of the Agreement to include clause 3, so as to acquire rights of dubbing beyond the Telugu language, but Defendant No. 3 had refused to execute an amended Agreement.

6. However, on learning that exploitation rights of the suit film had been assigned to one Goldmine Telefilms Pvt. Ltd., Plaintiff sent

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