Back
1994 Supreme(Mad) 560
High Court of Judicature at Madras
AR. LAKSHMANAN
Raj Video Vision, registered partnership firm rep. by its Partners
Versus
Sun T.V.
O.A. No. 294 of 1994 & A. No. 2326 of 1994 in C.S. No. 362 of 1994
Decided On :Decided on: 25-07-1994
For the Applicant:R. Krishnaswami, Advocate.
For the Respondent:N.S. Varadachari for S. Mohamed Yousuf, Advocates.
Satellite television broadcasting rights are independent rights and cannot be claimed under video rights or TV rights unless specifically assigned.
Headnote:
COPYRIGHT - SATELLITE TELEVISION BROADCASTING RIGHTS - WHETHER INCLUDED IN VIDEO RIGHTS - INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENTS - INJUNCTION - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, claiming to be the absolute owner of limited copyright in the pictures "Oru Iniya Udayam" and "Nooravathu Naal," sought a declaration and injunction restraining the defendant from infringing their copyright by telecasting the pictures through satellite. The plaintiff relied on agreements assigning them video rights, TV rights, and lease rights for exploitation, exhibition, and distribution of the pictures.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that satellite television broadcasting rights are independent rights and cannot be claimed under video rights or TV rights unless specifically assigned. The agreements relied on by the plaintiff did not mention satellite rights, and the plaintiff had not acquired such rights. The court also found that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was in favor of the defendant, who had acquired the satellite rights.
Issues: 1. Whether satellite television broadcasting rights are included in video rights or TV rights. 2. Interpretation of the agreements relied on by the plaintiff. 3. Whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for an injunction. 4. Balance of convenience.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Satellite television broadcasting rights are independent rights and cannot be claimed under video rights or TV rights unless specifically assigned. 2. The agreements relied on by the plaintiff did not mention satellite rights, and the plaintiff had not acquired such rights. 3. The plaintiff had not established a prima facie case for an injunction. 4. The balance of convenience was in favor of the defendant, who had acquired the satellite rights.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an injunction and vacated the interim injunction previously granted.
1. The applicant herein is the plaintiff in the above suit. The suit has been filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the limited copyright, viz., 8 mm, 16 mm, 35 mm, and TV rights for the entire World in the picture “Oru Inya Udayam” Tamil colour and Video and Television rights for the entire India in the picture “Nooravathu Naal” Tamil Colour, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiffs limited copyright, etc. The suit has been filed under S. 55 of the Copyright Act for the relief of delcaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the above copyright.
2. The plaintiffs case is that by agreeement dated 6.9.1986 between the producer Pondu Cine Arts and himself, he has been assigned the lease rights of exploitation, exhibition and distribution of the picture “Oru Iniya Udhayam’ in the dimensions asked for in the suit. The plaintiff places reliance on Cl. (1) and Cl. (5) of the agreement which in are as follows:
“C1.-5: The lessees are hereby irrevocably authorised by the Lessors to sell, dispose, assign, lease the video cassettes/tapes/discs produced by the lessesses to any other party, person or any of them or any part thereof at the sole discretion of the Lessees.
Clause-1: The Lessors hereby grant and confer the Lease rights of exploitation, exhibition and distribution of the said picture “Oru Iniya Udhayam” in 35 mm, 16 mm, 8 mm, and in any other dimensions of commercial, non commercial and the T.V. rights for the entire overseas territories and video rights for the entire World including Indian Union Territories for perpetual period.”
In regard to the picture ‘Nooravathu Naal’ four agreements are relied on by the plaintiff. The first agreement is dated 4.4.88 between Thirupathysamy pictures (Producers of Nooravathu Naal) and one V.C. Palanisamy, whereby the said Palanisamy is assigned copyright in 9 pictures. Cl. 2 of the said agreement reads as follows:
“The Lessees shall be entitled the Video Copyrights of the said pictures, taping, mastering Video rights and Distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the Video Cassettes/tapes/discs throughout Indian territories either by themselves or through their assignees and shall enjoy the benefits derived out of the same without any claim or interruption from the lessor or anyone claiming through them.”
By agreement dated 6.4.88, the said Palanisamy assigns to Subala Video the Video Copyrights of the picture including “Nooravathu Naal”. C1. 2 of the said agreement details the rights that are granted and Cl. 2 reads as follows:
“The Lessees shall be entitled to the Video Copyrights of the said pictures, taping, mastering Video rights and also distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the Video Cassettee/Tapes/discs throughout Indian territories either by themselves or through their assignees and shall enjoy the benefits derived out of the same without any claim or interruption from the Lessor or anyone claiming through him.”
Cl. 5 and 7 are also relied on which are re-produced hereunder:
“Clause-5: The Lessor hereby agrees and confirms that prior to the execution of this Agreement he has not transferred, assigned or entered into any agreement with any party in India in respect of the assignment of the Video rights covered under this agreement.
Clause-7: The Lessor hereby assures and confirms that he is entitled to enter into this agreement with the Lessees and that there is no hypothecation or charge over the video rights of the aforesaid Nine pictures covered under this agreement.”
On 20-5-1991, Subala Video assigns to Swastik Video Vision, the lease of video rights in any part of India, but, does not include the telecasting of the movie in Television in and outside India any other mechanism. The expression video rights has also been defined to mean the rights to reproduce the films on Video cassette and to distribute them for private exhibition in India. Cl-8 states that the lessees shall be entitl
