J U D G M E N T

The present suit has been filed for the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in the entire audio copyrights in the sound recordings of the films mentioned in the Plaint Schedule by means of two agreements dated 17.7.2008 and st for a permanent injunction restraining the 1 defendant from in any manner infringing the copyright of the plaintiff.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that they are in the business of exploiting, manufacturing and marketing pre-recorded cassettes- audio and video content digitally and through all mediums. During the course of their business, they entered nd into an agreement dated 17.7.2008 with the 2 defendant and by virtue of the same, the plaintiff claims that the entire copyright in the works relating to the entire sound nd track in the five films owned by the 2 defendant was assigned in favour of the plaintiff on a perpetual basis. Similarly the plaintiff also entered into an agreement rd on 17.7.2008 with the 3 defendant and by virtue of the same, the plaintiff claims that the entire copyright in the works relating to the entire sound track in the two nd films owned by the 3 defendant was assigned in favour of the plaintiff on a perpetual basis.

3.The further case of the plaintiff is that they became the sole and absolute owner of all the audio copyrights in the seven films (hereinafter referred to as Schedule Films) and they were exploiting their rights in the audio works immediately after the right was assigned through the above agreements.

st

4.The plaintiff received a letter dated 6.8.2010 from the 1 defendant wherein st the 1 defendant claimed that they were the sole and absolute owners of the copyright and other related rights in the sound recording of the films Sithara, Seethakoka, Chilaka, Sankarabharanam and Sagarasangamam. Immediately on nd rd receipt of this letter, the plaintiff contacted their assignors namely the 2 and 3 nd rd defendants and sought for a clarification. It is stated that the 2 and 3 defendants informed the plaintiff that the audio rights were assigned by them earlier for a period nd of 25 years to one M/s. Sea Records and the period was over. That apart the 2 and rd

3 defendants also furnished to the plaintiff a letter dated 13.4.2005 which was nd rd st st written by the 2 and 3 defendants to the 1 defendant wherein the 1 defendant was informed that the rights assigned in favour of M/s. Sea Records has already st expired and hence the 1 defendant does not have any right to further exploit the copyright. The plaintiff claims that they were satisfied with the clarification given by nd rd the 2 and 3 defendants and hence without giving any reply to the letter dated

6.8.2010, they continued to exploit the audio rights in the Schedule Films.

5.The further case of the plaintiff is that they came to know during April 2014 that the 1 defendant is continuing to sell the audio CDs of the Schedule Films through internet and online stores. Hence an order was placed and the plaintiff was able to buy the infringing CDs. A legal notice was also issued by the plaintiff to the st st

1 defendant calling upon the 1 defendant to cease and desist from infringing the st copyright of the plaintiff and selling the audio contents. The 1 defendant even thereafter continued to infringe the copyright of the plaintiff. This was the trigger for st filing the present suit and seeking for reliefs against the 1 defendant.

st rd

6. The case of the 1 defendant is that the 3 defendant entered into an rd agreement on 22.4.1978 and 17.9.1979 with M/s. Sea Records and thereby the 3 defendant transferred and assigned all the recording rights and all the mechanical rd reproduction rights including the rights in the performance of the 3 defendant’s artists, musicians, etc., in all the works to be recorded or re-recorded under the provisions of the agreement in favour of M/s. Sea Records. Subsequently, on 9.8.2000, M/s. Sea Records entered into an assignment agreement with M/s.

Gra