JUDGMENT :

The suit was filed for injunctive relief and damages for the alleged infringement of the copyright in the movie “Moondru Mugam” by exhibiting the movie “Mersal”. The Plaintiff is a private limited company engaged, inter alia, in the production and distribution of Tamil movies. In the year 1982, the third Defendant produced the Tamil feature film titled “Moondru Mugam”. The said movie was a box office success. A proprietary concern named M/s Group Company, represented by its Proprietor, Mr. S. Kathiresan, entered into an Assignment Agreement on 02.08.2007(the Original Assignment Agreement) with the third Defendant for assignment of the copyright in the story of the movie “Moondru Mugam” to Mr. S. Kathiresan for purposes of remaking the movie in the Tamil language. The term of assignment was 99 years from the date of the said Agreement. Subsequent thereto, the Plaintiff obtained a no objection letter on 22.03.2014 from the third Defendant for dubbing the remade version of the movie “Moondru Mugam” in the Telugu language. According to the Plaintiff, Mr. S. Kathiresan transferred the assignment to the Plaintiff on 05.09.2015 because the cost of production was high and it was considered easier for a limited company to raise finances.

2. A Tamil movie titled as “Mersal” was released on 18.10.2017. The said movie was produced by the first Defendant and directed by the second Defendant. Upon viewing the movie, the Plaintiff asserts that the movie is a copy of “Moondru Mugam”. In order to establish that “Mersal” is a copy of “Moondru Mugam”, the Plaintiff has set out, in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint, the story of the two movies and a table pointing out the alleged substantial similarities between the movies. The Plaintiff states that the following substantial similarities are conspicuous on viewing the two movies. There is an honest father who has two sons. In his dying moments, the father vows to exact revenge on the person responsible for his murder by being reborn. The sons are raised by foster parents after the death of their mother. The brutal murder of the father is disclosed midway through the movie. Eventually, the villain, who brutally murdered the father, is killed by the sons.

3. Immediately upon noticing the infringement, the Plaintiff states that the first Defendant was approached and that the first Defendant assured the Plaintiff that monetary compensation would be paid. Since this assurance was not adhered to, the Plaintiff submitted a complaint to the Tamil Film Producers' Council (the Film Producers' Council) on 25.10.2017. Upon receipt thereof, the President of the Film Producers' Council called for an explanation from the first and second Defendants. The Plaintiff states that the Film Producers' Council passed a resolution on 31.10.2017 against the second Defendant and demanded that he pays 30% of the salary received from the first Defendant to the Plaintiff. Upon receipt of the communication from the Film Producers' Council, the Plaintiff states that the second Defendant provided an evasive reply. In spite of endeavouring to resolve the dispute amicably by using the good offices of the Film Producers' Council, the Plaintiff states that the Defendants did not co-operate in resolving the dispute. According to the Plaintiff, a minimum of Rs.20 crore would be earned as profit if “Moondru Mugam” is remade in Tamil and Telugu by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff asserts that the project was promoted over about one year. Since the second Defendant is the Director and the first Defendant is the producer, the Plaintiff alleges that both of them are liable for infringement of the Plaintiff's copyright. The Plaintiff also asserts that the second Defendant admitted in media interactions that he copied the movie “Moondru Mugam”. The suit was filed in the above facts and circumstances.

4. In his written statement, the f