Back
Rajkumar Theatres fails to prove copyright, allows Drishyam 3 release
In a significant ruling for the entertainment and copyright bar, the has declined to halt the worldwide release of the Hindi-language adaptation of Drishyam 3 , starring Ajay Devgn and Tabu. Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, presiding over an interim application under , found that the applicant—Chennai-based —had failed to establish a sufficiently clear in the remake rights to warrant the sweeping injunction sought. The order, delivered on , paves the way for the film’s release on as originally scheduled, while leaving the underlying ownership dispute to be resolved through arbitration.
A Copyright Conundrum: The Battle Over Remake Rights
The dispute traces back to the early days of the Drishyam franchise, a critically acclaimed Malayalam thriller series. Rajkumar Theatres claimed that under an agreement dated , with and filmmaker Jeethu Joseph, it acquired exclusive Telugu remake rights, while a separate entity——obtained rights for Hindi and certain North Indian languages. Rajkumar asserted that it had financed the entire ₹50 crore consideration for the Hindi-language assignment and later entered into a agreement with Wide Angle, under which both entities allegedly became equal joint owners of the relevant copyright. According to the applicant, this arrangement extended automatically to subsequent sequels, including Drishyam 3 .
Rajkumar Theatres therefore argued that the Hindi remake of Drishyam 3 had been produced without its knowledge or consent, and sought an urgent interim order restraining the film’s release and exploitation worldwide—through theatres, OTT platforms, satellite television, and digital media.
Respondents Mount a Multi-Pronged Defence
The producers, director, and other parties involved in the Hindi remake—represented by and others—vigorously opposed the plea. They contended that Rajkumar Theatres had not produced any document demonstrating a subsisting exclusive right to restrain the film’s production or exploitation. More critically, they relied on a 2014 assignment in favour of , as well as settlement agreements executed in 2022, to argue that Rajkumar had subsequently assigned or otherwise dealt with the relevant Hindi and derivative rights. The respondents maintained that the Hindi sequel was lawfully produced under rights that had passed to through these later transactions.
They also disputed Rajkumar’s assertion that the 2013 agreement governed adaptations of sequels beyond the original film. The respondents pointed to the applicant’s own conduct, including its failure to participate in the production of the Hindi versions of earlier sequels, as evidence that the claimed joint ownership had either been waived or abandoned.
Court’s Critical Observations
Justice Thilakavadi examined the material placed on record and noted that the interim relief sought was “exceptionally wide”—an injunction against worldwide release and exploitation would have “serious consequences” for rights claimed by the respondents and third parties under subsequent arrangements. The court underscored that before granting such sweeping interim protection, an applicant must place before the court “sufficiently clear material demonstrating the existence of a subsisting and enforceable right that was under imminent threat of infringement.”
Applying this standard, the court found that Rajkumar Theatres had not met the threshold. The judgment observed:
“The material presently placed before this Court does not, at this , establish with sufficient clarity that the applicant continues to possess an exclusive or joint copy right in the Hindi remake rights of 'Drishyam 3'.”
The court noted that the respondents had placed reliance on subsequent assignment and settlement documents, and that Rajkumar’s claim that the 2013 agreement extended to the second sequel required “examination of the contractual documents and the parties’ subsequent conduct.” Similarly, the respondents’ contention that the applicant had itself assigned or otherwise disposed of the relevant Hindi and derivative rights raised factual questions that could only be resolved after a full trial or arbitration.
“The asserted rights are seriously disputed on the basis of subsequent documents,” the court stated, ruling that the applicant had not established the necessary foundation for the sweeping restraint sought.
Implications for Copyright and Contractual Disputes in Film Franchises
This ruling offers important guidance for parties litigating interim injunctions in copyright and contractual disputes over film remake rights. First, it reaffirms the principle that a party seeking an must demonstrate a case with clear, documentary evidence of a continuing and enforceable right. Vague or contested claims of joint ownership, especially where later dealings have occurred, will not suffice at the .
Second, the judgment highlights the significance of “subsequent conduct” and “subsequent assignments” in evaluating whether earlier rights remain alive. Courts will not assume that an initial agreement automatically extends to later sequels unless the contract explicitly so provides and the parties’ historical conduct is consistent with that interpretation.
Third, the decision underscores the heavy burden on an applicant who seeks to restrain the release of a commercially significant film. The potential harm to third parties, including investors, distributors, and the public, will weigh heavily against granting an injunction where the applicant’s own rights are contested.
What’s Next for the Drishyam Franchise?
The order does not finally determine ownership of the Hindi remake rights. It merely records that the rival claims arising from the various agreements, assignments, and settlements require further adjudication. The matter is now expected to proceed to arbitration, where the parties will have the opportunity to present full evidence on the and the intent of the original agreements.
For Rajkumar Theatres, the loss of interim protection means the film will be released as planned, potentially diminishing its bargaining position. However, if it ultimately prevails in arbitration, it may be entitled to damages or a share of profits. Conversely, for the respondents—, , and the creative team behind Drishyam 3 —the ruling provides immediate commercial certainty, allowing them to proceed with the release without the shadow of an injunction.
Conclusion
The ’s decision is a measured application of settled principles to a complex, multi-layered copyright dispute. It avoids disrupting the release of a major film while ensuring that the underlying contractual and copyright claims can be tested on their merits. For legal professionals, the case serves as a reminder of the critical importance of maintaining clear and consistent documentation of rights assignments throughout the lifecycle of a film franchise—and of the risks of relying on oral or implied understandings when millions of rupees and creative works are at stake.
The door remains open for Rajkumar Theatres to pursue its claims through arbitration, but the immediate battlefield has been lost. As Drishyam 3 hits screens worldwide, the legal saga over who truly owns its remake rights is far from over.
