2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 68373
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.Sounthar, J
Aarur Tamilnadan – Appellant
Versus
S.Sankar – Respondent
C.S.No.914 of 2010
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.G.Vairava Subramanian for M/s.P.T.Perumal
For the Respondents:Mr.Arun C.Mohan for M/s.D.Saikumaran for D1, Mr.AL.Somayaji (Sr. Advocate)for M/s.Sneha for D2, M/s.B.K.Girish Neelakandan for D3
Copyright protection does not extend to ideas; infringement requires substantial similarity in expression, not mere thematic coincidences.
Headnote:(A) Copyright Act - Sections 55 and 62 - Copyright infringement - The plaintiff claimed ownership of copyright over the story 'Jugiba,' alleging that the film 'Enthiran' was based on it without permission. Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish copyright infringement due to significant dissimilarities in the narratives. (Paras 1, 18)
(B) Copyright protection - Court ruled that copyright protection does not extend to ideas or themes, and only the expression of such ideas may be protected. The defendant's film, while sharing a similar idea, was deemed independently created. (Paras 45, 46)
(C) Cases of infringement - The court emphasized that similarity must be substantial to constitute copyright infringement; mere coincidences do not suffice for a claim. (Paras 45, 46)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, claiming to be the author of the story 'Jugiba', alleged that his work was pirated in the film 'Enthiran'. Despite asserting ownership and prior publication, he could not substantiate his claims against the defendants who denied infringement and claimed originality based on the story's different expressions and elements.
Findings of Court:
The court found no substantial grounds for infringement, concluding the plaintiff did not prove the 'Enthiran' film copied his work; thus, the suit was dismissed.
Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the plaintiff was the owner of copyright, whether 'Enthiran' was an infringing work, and entitlement to damages and injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that mere similarities in themes or ideas do not constitute copyright infringement. The plaintiff was unable to sufficiently compare both works or present independent evidence.
Result: The suit is dismissed and the plaintiff is ordered to pay the cost to the defendants.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff claims ownership of copyright. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendants deny copyright infringement. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. lack of independent evidence undermines claim. (Para 8 , 9 , 18) |
| 4. plaintiff argues origin of story. (Para 10 , 12) |
| 5. court reviews evidence and testimonies. (Para 11 , 14) |
| 6. no copyright in ideas; must prove substantial similarity. (Para 15) |
| 7. suit dismissed; defendants awarded costs. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT
The suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a declaration that he is the first owner of the copyright of the story “Enthiran” which was stolen/pirated from the original story “Jugiba” written and got published in April 1996. The plaintiff also sought for further declaration that the film "Enthiran" is the infringing copy of the plaintiff story "Jugiba" and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from distributing, screening and exhibiting, infringing copy namely the feature film "Enthiran". The plaintiff also prayed for direction to the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- towards damages. He also sought for preliminary decree directing the defendants to render true account of the profit earned by them by infringing the copyright of the plaintiff and for a final decree in favour of plaintiff for the amount of profits thus found to have been earned by the defendants.
2. Plaint Averments According to the plaintiff, he is a "Prolific" Tamil writer, who claimed that the plaintiff had written a story about Humanoid Robo “Jugiba” and the same was first published in a Tamil monthly Magazine "Iniya Udayam" during April 1996. The Thumb Nail sketch of the story is as follows:
“A Scientist Robin spends a decade in the computer lab to create a super power Robot and succeeds. He names it as “Jugiba”. The Robot has the capacity to store the facts from Adam and Eve to latest Nuclear weapons. It can move its joints in any directions. It can perceive situations and act accordingly. It resembles a man and it is capable of all human activities except pro-creation. The scientist Robin was ready to present his rare scientific creation to the conference next day. Elated by his own achievement, Robin calls his love Josephin to his Robot lab to show her his “Jugiba”. In fact, he had neglected her for about a decade, spending entire life in the lab with equipments in his endeavour to develop super Robot. Robin introduced Josephin to “Jugiba” as his lover. “Jugiba” expresses its love to Josephin and insisted to live with her. Robin explains to Jugiba that it is only a metal and machine and Josephin is flesh and blood and they cannot live together. On hearing this, Jugiba cries that it cannot live without Josephin, sheds tears and jumps from the building into the street and commits suicide.”
3. In the year 2007, the same group of publishers published the very same novel in the book titled "Thik Thik Theepika”, this book was sold in all book stalls and exhibitions. The State Government has also purchased the copies of the book, for its libraries situated throughout the State. Recently, the first defendant in his capacity as a story writer and director has made a film by name "Enthiran" in Tamil and other languages. The film was produced by defendants 2 and 3. The story of "Enthiran" is nothing but the story of "Jugiba" written by the plaintiff and published in the year 1996. It was claimed that after release of the film on 01.10.2010, many friends of the plaintiff informed him that the film "Enthiran" was made based on the story of "Jugiba"" in 1996. It was also claimed that though the story "Jugiba" was published in Tamil monthly magazine "Iniya Udayam" as per the understanding between the plaintiff and the publisher of "Iniya Udayam", the plaintiff is the first owner of the copyright. The story of "Jugiba" is pirated in the film "Enthiran" and the defendants never obtained any permission from the plaintiff. In spite of the knowledge that the plaintiff is the first owner of the copyright of the