Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1483
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
G.R. Raju, Proprietor of Vijay Vision, Chennai & Another - Appellant
Versus
Zee Telugu, Zee Tele Films Ltd., Hyderabad & Others - Respondent
C.S. Nos. 861 & 862 of 2008
Decided On : 05-11-2020
For the Appellant :P.L. Narayanan, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of lawfully executed documents for adequate consideration in establishing ownership of copyright, as well as the entitlement to a declaration of copyright ownership and a decree for permanent injunction based on the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1955.
Headnote:
COPYRIGHT - Declaration of Copyright Ownership - Sections 55, 62 of Copyright Act, 1955 - The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of copyright ownership and a decree for permanent injunction against the second defendant. The court referred to key legal provisions such as Section 2(d)(v), Section 2(uu), Section 13, Section 17, and Section 18 of the Copyright Act, 1955 to establish the plaintiff's ownership of copyright and the right to assign the copyright to any party. The court emphasized the importance of lawfully executed documents for adequate consideration in establishing ownership of copyright.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration as the copyright owner of certain movies and a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing the plaintiff's copyright. The plaintiff had obtained exclusive copyright rights through a written agreement with the producer of the movies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting a declaration of copyright ownership and a decree for permanent injunction against the second defendant. The court also awarded costs to the plaintiff.
Issues: The issues considered by the court were the entitlement of the plaintiff for the relief of declaration, entitlement for the relief of permanent injunction, and other reliefs the plaintiff was entitled to.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's ownership of copyright was established through lawfully executed documents for adequate consideration, and the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of copyright ownership and a decree for permanent injunction based on the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1955.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff against the second defendant, and the plaintiff was awarded costs as per the amended Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to the Commercial Division of the High Court.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: This Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC., read with Sections 55 and 62 of Copy Right Act, 1955 praying for a decree and Judgment in favour of the plaintiff granting the following reliefs:
(a) for the relief of declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute copy right owner in the suit pictures morefully described in the schedule hereunder having the rights of distribution, exhibition, exploitation rights, inclusive of commercial, non-commercial, theatrical, non-theatrical medias, world Television rights, world Video rights, world Satellite rights, Cable TV rights, DVD VCD, LD, Internet and web based technology rights DTU (Direct to User) and DTH (Direct to Home) rights, audio rights, broad casting rights in All India Radio and other stations and all other rights in whatsoever manner including the future scientific advancement and technological rights for the territories of entire world including India in respect of the suit pictures for a period of 99 years from 31.01.2001;
(b) granting permanent injunction restraining the first and second defendant their agents, servants, each and every person or persons in any manner interfering with infringing the plaintiff-s copy right in the suit pictures morefully described in the schedule hereunder inclusive of commercial, non-commercial, theatrical, non-theatrical medias, world Television rights, world Video rights, world Satellite rights, Cable TV rights, DVD, VCD, LD, Internet and web based technology rights DTU (Direct to User) and DTH (Direct to Home) rights, audio rights, broad casting rights in All India Radio and other stations and all other rights in whatsoever manner including the future scientific advancement and technological rights in respect of the suit pictures; and
(c) the costs of this suit.)
1. The suit had been filed seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the copy right owner of the movies “Rao Gopal Rao”, “Rendu Jadala Seetha”, “Jananee Janma Boomi” and “Merupu Daadi” with exploitation rights for commercial and non-commercial purposes for theatrical and non-theatrical medias, including Video rights, world Satellite rights, Cable TV rights, DVD and such other rights including web based technology rights and also broad casting rights in All India Radio and other stations and any other rights including the future scientific advancement and technological rights for the territories of entire world including India for a period of 99 years from 31.01.2001 and for a permanent injunction restraining the first and second defendants from infringing the rights of the plaintiff over the said movies and for costs of the suit.
2. The plaintiff claimed that the third defendant G.Radhakrishna, Proprietor, Sree Brahmarambika Films at Bangalore was the producer of the Telugu movies “Rao Gopal Rao”, “Rendu Jadala Seetha”, “Jananee Janma Boomi” and “Merupu Daadi”. On 31.01.2001 by way of a written agreement, the third defendant had assigned their exclusive copy rights in the said movies in favour of the plaintiff for exploitation in all forms, including theatrical and non-theatrical medias, including Video rights, world Satellite rights, Cable TV rights, DVD and such other rights including web based technology rights and also broad casting rights in All India Radio and other stations and any other rights including the future scientific advancement and technological rights for the territories of entire world including India for a period of 99 years from 31.01.2001.
3. The plaintiff had paid a total consideration of Rs.50,000/-. This has also been acknowledged by the third defendant by way of a receipt dated 07.02.2001. It was stated that the first and second defendant had illegally telecasted one of the movies, namely, “Rao Gopal Rao” and therefore, the plaintiff sent a telegram on 24.06.2008 through their lawyer. It was stated that since the plaintiff has the exclusive copy right over the said mov
