SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 2018

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.I. CHAGLA, J
Trishul Media Entertainment – Appellant
Versus
Retrophiles Private Limited – Respondent
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 15925 OF 2023 | COMMERCIAL IPR SUIT (L) NO.15922 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dr. Abinav Chandrachud, Mr. Pranit Kulkarni, Mr. Gandhar Raikar
For the Respondents: Mr. Hiren Kamod, Mr. Varun Nathani, Mr. Munaf Virjee, Mr. Rushabh Parekh, Mr. Akash Agarwal, Ms. Surekha Srinivasan, Mr. Rashmin Khandekar, Mr. Ameet Naik, Ms. Megha Chandra, Ms. Madhu Gadodia, Mr. Deepak Deshmukh, Mr. Suyog Mukherjee, Ms. Tarini Kulkarni

A juristic entity cannot claim moral rights under the Copyright Act nor seek credits on behalf of employees if it is in breach of contract; the relief sought must benefit a class with commonality of interest.

Headnote:(A) Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 51 and Section 57 - Moral rights of authors - Suit filed by a juristic entity claiming credit in the end-credits of a film for its employees - Court found that Plaintiff was in sit breach of contract, thus could not invoke credit clause - No meaningful commonality of interest between Plaintiff and its employees for representative suit. (Paras 67, 68, 69)

(B) Interim Applications - Nature of amendments - Court held that amendments sought by Plaintiff transforming personal rights into a representative suit are impermissible as they violate procedural rules. (Paras 68, 70).

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff claimed credits for its employees in a film, arguing contractual obligations under the VFX Studio Agreement, while the Defendants contended the Plaintiff breached those contracts.

Findings of Court:
The Court determined the Plaintiff failed to establish a breach by the Defendants and noted the Plaintiff's delay undermined its request for interim relief.

Issues: The principal questions were whether the Plaintiff was entitled to claim credit on behalf of its employees under the contract and whether it could seek to represent its employees in this suit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the Plaintiff's failure to meet contractual obligations precluded it from seeking credits and that a lack of commonality of interest barred the representative suit under CPC rules.

Result: Interim Applications dismissed.

Table of Content
1. details of the interim applications and procedural origins. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. additional interim applications filed by the plaintiff. (Para 5 , 6)
3. defendants' response to interim applications. (Para 7 , 12 , 14)
4. plaintiff's obligations under agreements. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
5. legal significance of the copyright act. (Para 13 , 15 , 18)
6. discussion on community of interest for representative actions. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
7. treatment of breaches and claims. (Para 23 , 24)
8. issues of admission, concessions and their implications. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
9. arguments concerning the applicability of the copyright act. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
10. arguments against the collective nature of claims. (Para 33 , 34 , 35)
11. legal principles governing representative suits. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
12. issues raised concerning the conflict of interests. (Para 40 , 42)
13. legal validation of representative suits. (Para 43 , 44 , 45)
14. the procedural nature of applications made. (Para 46 , 47 , 48)
15. delay in claims and responses. (Para 49 , 50 , 51)
16. supporting arguments for the judgment. (Para 52 , 53 , 54)
17. final rulings and observations on rights and claims. (Para 55 , 56)
18. conclusions drawn from case law referenced. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)
19. conclusion on the applicability of claims. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)
20. final legal principles surrounding authorship. (Para 66 , 67)
21. summary of amendments and resolution of applications. (Para 68 , 69)
22. conclusion and direction for future hearings. (Para 70 , 71)
JUDGMENT :

1. The Interim Application (L) No.15925 of 2023 was filed on 14th June, 2023 and had been moved before this Court on 15th June, 2023. By order dated 15th June, 2023, this Court had noted that the subject film “Adipurush” is being released in the theater on 16th June, 2023. Paragraph 3 of the said order is relevant to produce, which reads as under :

“Mr. Ashish Kamat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Defendant has raised preliminary issue of maintainability of the Suit. He states that the Applicant/Plaintiff has been given credit for character assets in the subject film and has tendered snap shot of the credits which is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. It appears from the snap shot that the Plaintiff has been given credit under character assets. Thus, the grievance insofar as the Plaintiff regarding not being given credit in the subject film appears to be addressed.”

The Applicant/Plaintiff in the aforementioned Interim Application had applied for ad-interim relief including inter alia in Prayer Clause ‘a’, as follows :

“That the Plaintiffs/Applicants be given Credit in the film “Adipurush” to all the employees/agents and contract workers who had worked in the project for all the assets, layout, animation, compositing and such other supporting employees as part of the production of the film.”

2. There were other prayers including prayer for restraining the Defendants from releasing “Adipurush” (“subject film”) in theaters or on any OTT Platform or Online or any other film / television series incorporating the works authored by the Plaintiffs, by themselves or their employees or agents without giving due credits to the Plaintiffs or their employees or agents in the said film so as to infringe the Plaintiff’s moral rights in the works contained in Exhibit- A of the Plaint. It is not necessary to refer to the other prayers as on 15th June, 2023 when the aforementioned Interim Application had come up, Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant/Plaintiff had submitted that at this stage no ad-interim relief is being sought for in respect of the prayers other than giving of credit to the Applicant/Plaintiff. He had submitted that the Applicant/Plaintiff is not intending to prevent the release of the subject film, which was scheduled for release on the next day.

Further, he had submitted that he would press for further ad-interim relief after o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top