Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 18038
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J
C.Prakash Proprietor of M/s.Sri Kumaran CD Collection & Electronics – Appellant
Versus
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited – Respondent
Civil Suit No.301 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.V.Swaroop
For the Respondents: Mr.Rajesh Ramanathan, Mr.M.Narayanaswamy, Mr.K.K.Sivasshanmugam
Copyright ownership disputes hinge on the validity of prior assignments and evidence of infringement, impacting claims for damages.
Headnote:(A) Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 62 - Civil procedure in Copyright infringement - The plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership over copyrights of certain films and damages for loss of revenue - Defendants counterclaimed for injunction against infringement - Examination of assignment agreements established that the first defendant holds valid rights - The plaintiff failed to prove ownership or entitlements to damages - Established that the assignment agreements for films overlapped - The plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs prayed. (Paras 1 to 24)
(B) The suit may qualify for filing in Commercial Division given the nature of copyright infringement under Section 62 despite claims for declaratory relief. (Paras 18, 23)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff alleges ownership of copyrights in Tamil films through assignment agreements and claims damages due to YouTube video takedowns. The first defendant asserts prior rights and counterclaims for injunction and damages for infringement.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish copyright ownership; the first defendant has valid claims to copyrights for ''Haridas'' and ''Endrendrum Punnagai'', while both the plaintiff's and first defendant's assignments had discrepancies.
Issues: The court addressed issues concerning the validity of copyright assignments, whether the plaintiff is the valid copyright owner, and if damages were warranted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled against the plaintiff, affirming that the first defendant holds rightful ownership over the relevant films, and the plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief are granted to the first defendant.
Result: The suit is dismissed; the first defendant’s counterclaim is decreed with specific relief granted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff claims ownership of copyrights. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendant contests ownership based on prior assignments. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court addresses legal parameters of the suit. (Para 10 , 18) |
| 4. court finds in favor of defendant citing valid assignments. (Para 19 , 23) |
JUDGMENT
The suit was filed seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the copyright in the Tamil cinematograph films titled ''Haridas'', ''Endrendrum Punnagai'', and ''Yarukku Yaaro''. In addition, the plaintiff prayed for damages of Rs.53,426/- (Rupees Fifty three thousand four hundred and twenty six only) for loss of revenue caused by the termination of his YouTube Channel between 23.04.2018 and 26.04.2018 and further damages on the same ground from the date of suit till the date of decree.
2. The first defendant filed a written statement along with counter claims for a permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff from infringing the first defendant's copyright in the cinematographic films ''Haridas'', ''Endrendrum Punnagai'' and ''Yarukku Yaaro'', rendition of accounts by the plaintiff, surrender of all infringing material and punitive damages of Rs.10,00,000/-. The second defendant adopted the written statement of the first defendant. While the fourth defendant filed a written statement, the third, sixth and seventh defendants forfeited their right to do so and the plaintiff elected not to prosecute the suit against the fifth defendant.
3. The plaintiff stated as follows. The plaintiff entered into assignment agreements in relation to the acquisition of rights in the Tamil movies ''Haridas'', ''Endrendrum Punnagai'' and ''Yarukku Yaaro'' on 04.09.2014, 17.12.2014 and 20.02.2014, respectively. On the basis of these assignment agreements, the plaintiff asserted that he is the absolute owner of the copyright in the said movies. As regards the Assignment Agreement dated 17.12.2014 in respect of ''Endrendrum Punnagai'' , the plaintiff relied upon the assignment clause therein to contend that the assignment extends to video copyrights, cable rights and other communication rights. As regards the movie ''Yarukku Yaaro'', the plaintiff asserted that the assignment in his favour was from S.Balakrishnan who, in turn, was assigned the said rights by the producer of the movie, M/s.Universal Thavamani Cine Arts. As regards the movie ''Haridas'', the plaintiff referred to the relevant portion of the Agreement dated 04.09.2014 to state that the assignment extended to video rights, cable rights and other communication rights.
4. The plaintiff further stated that he was shocked to discover that the first defendant had issued a notice to take down or strike against the plaintiff's video of ''Yarukku Yaaro'', which was uploaded on YouTube on 14.04.2018. As a result, the said video was taken down by YouTube Similarly, on 19.09.2017, the second defendant, acting on behalf of the first defendant, issued a strike against the plaintiff's video of the movie ''Endrendrum Punnagai'', which was also uploaded on YouTube. Once again, YouTube took down the video. The plaintiff refers to a similar strike on 19.09.2017 which resulted in the video of the movie ''Haridas'' being taken down. Thereafter, the plaintiff stated that his YouTube Channel named “New Tamil Movies” was taken down and all the content uploaded thereon became inaccessible. Therefore, the plaintiff alleges that he was put to considerable revenue loss, and that he was constrained to file the suit.
5. The first defendant refuted the above statements through its written statement. The first defendant raised the preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable before the Commercial Division since it does not qualify as a suit under Section 62 of the Copyright Act 1957(the Copyright Act). In this regard, the first defendant also asserted that the value of the suit is only Rs.58,426/- and, therefore, the suit is not of the Specified Value as defined in the Commercial Courts Act,
