Ownership of copyright requires valid chain of title; injunction granted based on prima facie ownership despite low plaint valuation under the Copyright Act.

ORDER :

1. This Application has been filed to vacate the order of injunction dated 31.01.2025 passed by this Court in O.A.No.94 of 2025 in C.S.(Comm.Div) No.40 of 2025.

2. The case of the Applicant is as follows:

2.1. The Applicant, who is the 1^st defendant in the Suit, owns four YouTube channels viz., “Tamil Blockbuster,” “Blockbuster Movies,” “B4K Music” and “Bravo HD Movies.” He has filed this application to vacate the interim injunction already granted by this Court on 31.01.2025 in O.A. No.94 of 2025 in C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.40 of 2025.

2.2. The 1^st Respondent/Plaintiff claimed that it owns exclusive copyright, including digital rights, over three old films viz., 16 Vayathinile, Kalangarai Vilakkam and Kudiyirundha Kovil. When those films were streamed on the Applicant/1^st defendant’s YouTube channels, the 1^st Respondent/Plaintiff sent notices. The Applicant/1^st defendant responded to each notice stating that he had written permission from the original copyright owners, which include permissions from SRS Films on behalf of Mr.S.A.Rajakannu for 16 Vayathinile and permissions from Mrs.Shanthi Saravanan of Saravana Films for Kalangarai Vilakkam & Kudiyirundha Kovil. After these responses, YouTube reinstated the videos. After eight months, the 1^st Respondent/Plaintiff approached the Court and obtained an order of interim injunction, due to which the Applicant’s channel content was removed on 03.02.2025.

2.3. The impugned order dated 31.01.2025 was an exparte order. The 1^st Respondent/Plaintiff has no valid copyright over the films. The agreements relied upon by the 1^st Respondent/Plaintiff dated 10.06.1999 and 23.03.2000 were signed with a firm viz., O.K.Films, represented by Mr.R.V.Mani. However, this firm was not the original copyright owner. The 1^st Respondent/Plaintiff has not explained how O.K.Films acquired the rights in the first place. Without proving this essential detail, the 1^st Respondent/Plaintiff cannot claim ownership or copyright over the films.

2.4. For the film 16 Vayathinile, the 1^st Respondent/Plaintiff relies on an agreement dated 10.01.1993. However, that agreement is actually between Sree Amman Creation and Raj Video Vision and not Raj Television Network Limited, who is the Plaintiff in the Suit. Raj Video Vision and Raj Television Network are different entities, established in different years and operating in different business activities. Even their addresses differ from what has been shown in the Plaint. This raises serious doubts about the authenticity of the agreement and shows that the 1^st Respondent/Plaintiff has misrepresented the facts in order to claim rights.

2.5. The 1^st Respondent/Plaintiff cannot rely on Section 55 of the Copyright Act, as they failed to show valid copyright ownership. Without proving ownership, they cannot claim infringement.

2.6. This Court does not have jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as the Plaintiff has valued the suit only for Rs.4,000/-. For the cases concerning intangible rights, the law requires a minimum value of Rs.3,00,000/-. Thus, the suit itself is not maintainable before the Commercial Division.

2.7. The Applicant has a strong prima facie case. The balance of convenience is also in his favour because he has already removed all the videos and keeping the injunction in force will cause him irreparable loss, while the 1st Respondent will suffer no prejudice if the injunction is vacated.

3. The case of the 1^st Respondent is as follows:

3.1. The 1^st Respondent, who is the Plaintiff in the suit claims that he acquired rights from an “original copyr