Back
2001 Supreme(Mad) 199
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. CHOCKALINGAM
Raj Video Vision Rep. by its Partner, M. Raveendran
Versus
Sun T.V., Rep. by its Director
C.S. No. 362 of 1994
Decided On :Decided On : 19-02-2001
R. Krishnaswsami, Senior Counsel for C. Ramesh for Plaintiff. N.S. Varadachari for S. Mohammed Yousuf for Defendant.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's agreements did not specifically assign satellite rights, and the plaintiff lacked requisite pleading and evidence, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Headnote:
Copyright - Infringement - Satellite Television Rights - Copyright Act, 1957, Sections 18(2) and 19(2) - The plaintiff sought declaration and injunction for limited copyright in two films, alleging infringement by the defendant through satellite telecast. The defendant contended that the plaintiff's rights did not include satellite broadcasting rights. The court held that the plaintiff's agreements did not specifically assign satellite rights, and the plaintiff lacked requisite pleading and evidence. The court also found non-joinder of necessary parties, the owners of the films, and dismissed the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought a declaration and injunction for limited copyright in two films, alleging infringement by the defendant through satellite telecast. The defendant contended that the plaintiff's rights did not include satellite broadcasting rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's agreements did not specifically assign satellite rights, and the plaintiff lacked requisite pleading and evidence. The court also found non-joinder of necessary parties, the owners of the films, and dismissed the suit.
Issues: The issues included whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction, whether the limited copyright included TV and Satellite TV Rights, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to all the copyrights in the suit pictures for the overseas territories.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's agreements did not specifically assign satellite rights, and the plaintiff lacked requisite pleading and evidence. The court also found non-joinder of necessary parties, the owners of the films, and dismissed the suit.
Final Decision: The suit was dismissed, and no order was made as to the costs.
1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff praying for a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the limited copyright viz. 8mm, 16mm, 35 mm and TV rights for the entire world in the picture “Oru Iniya Udayam” Tamil Colour and Video and television rights for entire India in the Picture “Nooravathu Naal” Tamil colour and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiffs limited copyrights viz. 8mm, 16mm, 35 mm TV rights in Overseas Territories, Video and Satellite Television Right in the entire world in the pictures “Oru Iniya Udhayam” and “Nooravathu Naal” Tamil Colour by telecasting the same and for costs.
2. The plaintiff has averred in the plaintiff as follows:
Plaintiff is carrying on business in exhibition, exploitation and distribution of motion picture commercial and non commercial, in all gauges, while the defendant is a Television communication centre, transmitting regional language programmes mainly in Tamil. Plaintiff acquired the rights of exhibition, exploitation and distribution of the picture “Oru Iniya Udhayam” Tamil colour in 8mm, 16mm and 35 mm gauges and Television media for the entire overseas territories and video rights for the entire world under agreement dated 6.9.1986. Right to exploit the video rights and television rights in the picture “Noorvathu Naal” Tamil Colour was also acquired by the plaintiff under the agreement dt. 19.8.92. Plaintiff has acquired the limited copyrights as aforesaid and has been exploiting the same without any interference. On 20.3.94, the defendant announced in their programmes that they are going to telecast the aforesaid picture through the satellite communication network, which will be an infringement of the plaintiffs copyright. Hence the present suit.
3. The defendant filed a written statement, alleging that the suit is not maintainable, as there is a misjoinder of causes of action. Since the suit is based on two different causes of action, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff has not specifically prayed for declaration relating to satellite right. There is no pleading in the plaint that the Video rights, T.V. rights include Satellite rights, and that the plaintiff is entitled to telecast the picture through Satellite. The producer of the picture Oru Iniya Udayam viz. Pondu Cine Arts assigned the entire copyright and world negative rights in favour of M/s. Poornima Films. All the rights in respect of the picture become the property of the World Negative Rights Holder. The said Poornima Films assigned the entire copyright including the world negative rights in favour of M/s. O.K. Films, M/s. Vijaya Productions Pvt. Ltd. The said O.K. Films by agreement dated 3.1.94, assigned the copyright for satellite television absolutely in favour of M /s. Sumahgali Publications Pvt. Ltd. in which Sun TV is only a Unit. Clause 8 of the said agreement specifically provides that the sole and conclusive rights for Satellite TV/Broadcast vest with the defendant. As per the agreement dated 6.9.86 the plaintiff is only having T.V. right for overseas territories and video rights. Video rights certainly do not confer any rights on the plaintiff for broadcast through satellite. There is no mention of the word ‘satellite television’ in the alleged agreements put forward by the plaintiff. Likewise, the copyright of the film ‘Nooravathu Naal’ for satellite television was assigned by Thiru S.N.S. Thirumal, proprietor of Thirupathi Swami Pictures, in favour of M/s. Sumangali Publications Pvt. Ltd. under agreement dated 28.12.1993. In the face of the abovesaid two agreements, the defendant alone is entitled to such rights and they are entitled to broadcast the same through the satellite television. It is specifically mentioned in the agreement dated 20.5.91 that “this does not include telecasting of the movie in Television in and outside India and any other mechanism”. Satellite Television right is an independent right. Hence
