Back
Shields 'The Kerala Story 2' from Piracy on Release Day
In a swift move to safeguard a major film release, the on , granted to against , other internet service providers (ISPs), and cable TV operators. The orders aim to prevent unlawful broadcasts of the cinematographic film The Kerala Story 2 , which was set for theatrical debut that very day following clearance from the .
Presided over by Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy in the Commercial Division, the ruling underscores the urgency of nipping digital piracy in the bud, especially for fresh releases.
A Producer's Preemptive Strike Against Shadowy Screens
Sunshine Pictures, the Mumbai-based producer with a Chennai branch, holds the copyright to The Kerala Story 2 . Backed by a certificate naming it as producer, the company filed a commercial suit (C.S. Comm. Div. No. 69 of 2026) along with two original applications (O.A. Nos. 185 & 186).
O.A. No. 185 targeted BSNL and 28 other ISPs headquartered across India, while O.A. No. 186 zeroed in on four Chennai-based cable operators. The fear? Unauthorized streaming or transmission right as theaters opened, potentially devastating box-office prospects.
The timeline was razor-tight: applications filed amid the film's launch, with the court acting hours before public viewing.
Plaintiff's Case: Evidence of Ownership, Looming Threat
Counsel for Sunshine Pictures, represented by , highlighted the CBFC certificate as ironclad proof of ownership. No respondent arguments were aired, as this was an for interim relief. The core legal question boiled down to whether " " justified blocking access at source—via ISPs and cable networks—before any piracy surfaced.
Balancing Act: Swift Protection with Safeguards
Justice Ramamoorthy recognized the high stakes in copyright disputes involving new films. Without immediate intervention, " " could strike producers through lost revenue and diluted exclusivity. Yet, the broad sweep of the orders—impacting dozens of service providers—risked collateral damage to legitimate operations.
The court mandated from the plaintiff to cover any such fallout, a measured approach echoed in reports of the judgment. No precedents were invoked, but the reasoning aligns with standard principles under for urgent injunctions in IP matters.
Key Observations
"In an action forof the plaintiffs copyright in the cinematographic film titled 'THE KERALA STORY 2', the plaintiff has presented these two original applications seeking to restrain the Internet service providers and cable TV operators... from unlawfully broadcasting the movie."
(Para 1, establishing the suit's focus)
"As evidence of the plaintiffs ownership of the copyright, the plaintiff has filed the CBFC certificate describing the plaintiff as the producer."
(Para 2, affirming title)
"In matters of this nature, it is likely thatwill occur unless unlawful broadcast is prevented at the threshold."
(Para 3, justifying urgency)
"At the same time, it is possible that the legitimate business interest of one or more respondents may be affected, in view of the expansive nature of the relief claimed. Therefore, it is necessary that the plaintiff shall indemnify in respect thereof."
(Para 3, imposing balance)
Injunction Issued: Until March 23, With Strings Attached
"Subject to this condition, orders of ad interim injunction as prayed for are granted in these two applications until
."
Notices returnable by that date, with private notice permitted and compliance under
required.
Implications : This sets a template for film producers facing digital piracy threats—secure CBFC proof, seek early ISP/cable blocks, but prepare to indemnify. For ISPs and operators, it signals accountability in transmission chains, potentially curbing piracy proliferation while protecting bonafide services. The matter lists for hearing on March 23, where respondents can contest.
