IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Uday Prakash – Appellant
Versus
Anand Pandit And Another – Respondents
First Appeal From Order Defective No.432 of 2021
Decided on : 27-08-2021
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 151 - Order XXXIX - Rules 1 and 2 - Copyright Act, 1957 - section 35(1)(c) - Copyright - Plaintiff relating to a story-screenplay-dialogues for a feature film registered with Copyright Office at New Delhi Registration literary work aforesaid was registered name of aforesaid literary work shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘copyrighted work’- suit wherein temporary injunction application was made was instituted sometime in month of December and registered on file District Judge Ghaziabad as Suit following reliefs have been claimed –
Finding of the Court:
whatever comparison has been done is not in any manner a final expression of opinion on merits about distinctive similarities or dissimilarities- That is something that has to await trial where wholesome evidence would now be led - All remarks here are limited to decision of temporary injunction matter and nothing more plaintiff if he succeeds to proportionate proceeds on account as may be determined that film earns- But apart from that if copyright is ultimately be infringed at trial monetary compensation may not be recompense enough- It is therefore to be ordered that if plaintiff succeeds all further displays of feature film shall have to carry an acknowledgment suitably to be displayed that movie is based on copyrighted work which is plaintiff's authorship - Also trial of suit is to be expedited - Since District Judge is hearing suit himself he will proceed with suit fixing one every week and endeavour to conclude trial within four months –
Result: Appeal disposed
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a plaintiff’s appeal from an order of Mr. Jitendra Kumar Sinha, the learned District Judge, Ghaziabad, rejecting his application for temporary injunction in a suit for infringement of copyright.
2. The suit was instituted, complaining infringement of a copyright owned by the plaintiff relating to a story-screenplay-dialogues for a feature film, registered with the Copyright Office at New Delhi under Registration No. L-28822/2007 dated 16.07.2007. The literary work aforesaid was registered under the name of ‘Highway-39’. The aforesaid literary work shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘copyrighted work’. The suit, wherein the temporary injunction application was made, was instituted some time in the month of December, 2019 and registered on the file of the learned District Judge, Ghaziabad as Suit no.2 of 2019. The following reliefs have been claimed in the suit against the two defendants, who are the respondents here:
i. by restraining the defendants, jointly and severally, by themselves or acting through any agent or any other such person from infringing the registered copyright of the plaintiff in respect of his story and screenplay work titled as 'Highway-39' from converting and adopting the same into a motion picture/feature film in any name whatsoever;
ii. by restraining the Defendants, jointly or severally, by themselves or acting through their agents or any such person from producing, making, promoting, publicizing, releasing, communicating to public about the infringed feature film.
B. pass a decree of Mandatory injunction directing the defendants to jointly or severally:
i. to deliver all versions of the story/script/screenplay (literary work), reels and/or the produced work based on the registered copyright work of the plaintiff pertaining to the infringed feature film;
ii. to remove from internet and other similar platforms, including social media pertaining to the defendants and/or of social media account of any of the actors or any other such person involved with the production and making of the infringed feature film, including the removal of any and all promotional material (including posters, trailers and teaser) of the infringed feature film;
C. pass a decree for the rendition of accounts of the advance amount received by the Defendants from the Distribution Companies/Television Channels/Internet Television Network by selling the distribution rights/satellite rights/streaming rights respectively of the feature film made by the defendants by infringing the copyright of the plaintiff in the process of producing the infringed feature film;”
3. It would be apposite to give a more detailed account of the facts giving rise to this appeal. The plaintiff-appellant, Uday Prakash, who shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘plaintiff’, is claimed to be a Hindi Poet, Scholar, Filmmaker, Journalist and one who has worked as a Professor with Central Universities. The plaintiff also claims to have worked as an Administrator with the Government of India, but which department, is not explicit in the plaint. He also says that he has been an Editor, Researcher and Television Director with the National and Private TV Channels. He writes for major national dailies and periodicals on issues of social and cultural significance. There is an elaborate pleading by the plaintiff, showing his established scholarly status, besides an impressive list of accolades that stand to his credit in the form of prestigious literary awards and literary works of repute.
4. It is the plaintiff’s case that he conceived, conceptualized and set about a venture to write a screenplay (film script), that is to say, the copyrighted work, already introduced hereinbefore. The plaintiff says that he completed the copyrighted work and got the same registered with the Film Writers Association, Mumbai. The aforesaid literary work was submitted to the Copyright Office, New Delhi, where it was reg
Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif & Ors.
The Court emphasized that the Plaintiff's gross delay in seeking relief precluded equity, and found no substantial similarity or evidence proving copyright infringement or passing off.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the treatment of the film and the manner of its presentation were quite different from the plaintiff's novel, and there was no substantial sim....
There can be no copyright over an idea or concept, and similarities between works based on the same idea are bound to occur. Copyright infringement requires clear and cogent evidence of literal imita....
Copyright law protects expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves; thus, claims based on unprotectable elements fail to establish infringement.
The court confirmed that copyright protection extends to expression forms, not ideas, and prima facie establishment of similarity warrants injunction relief.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove substantial similarities and clear evidence of piracy to establish copyright infringement. The court emphasized the need f....
The expression of ideas through creative aspects such as images, literary content, and the manner of depicting stories is protectable under copyright law, while no copyright could be claimed for imag....
The judgment established the importance of an existing work for claiming copyright, the limitations on assignment of copyright, and the conditions for commercial exploitation of privacy rights under ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.