9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1687 - HC - Indian LawsInfringement of copyrights - Suit for declaration injunction rendition of accounts and damages - prime contention of the plaintiff is that the defendants had not only adopted the idea of copyright work of the plaintiff but also had adopted the manner arrangement situation to situation scene to scene with minor changes additions or embellishments here and there. HELD THAT - The plaintiff has proved the fact that he has registered the story SPM with the third defendant association on 10.04.2013. The script of SPM is marked as Ex.P.1. The script of movie Kathi is marked as Ex.D.2 and the CD of the film Kathi is marked as Ex.D.3. In the plaint it is alleged that the script SPM and script of Kathi are replica of each other. Whereas on reading both the scripts this Court finds that there is not even iota of similarity. Whatever similarity drawn and mentioned in the comparative chart - Ex.P.5 are very remote and even if it be in isolation they are not similar taken as a whole - this Court finds that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that his form manner arrangement and expression of idea has been infringed by the defendants. The script of the plaintiff is based on emotion between two couple centering around an old lady. Whereas the script of the second defendant Kathi is on land grabbing by a schemy industrialists. There is no similarity on the fundamentals or substantial aspect neither mode of expression is similar. As the Hon ble Supreme Court has said in R.G. ANAND VERSUS M/S. DELUX FILMS AND OTHERS 1978 (8) TMI 231 - SUPREME COURT the surest and safest test to determine whether or not there has been a violation of copyright is to see if the Reader Spectator or the Writer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets non mistakenly that the subsequent work appears to be copy of the original. On reading of Ex.P.3 script ( SPM ) and Ex.D.2 script ( Kathi ) this Court do not get such impression. Rather this Court finds that the scripts are two different and distinct play and plot. While the plaintiff has not even able to establish that the story of Kathi is replica of his script SPM his allegation that the remake right acquired by the defendants 4 and 5 and the film Kaidhi No.150 produced by the defendants 4 and 5 is also infringement of script of SPM is totally baseless. More so when the plaintiff has not produced any document to show in connection with Kaidhi No.150 - this Court holds that the plaintiff has no legal right and the plaintiff has failed to establish any infringement of his copyright by the defendants. Hence this issue is negatived. Since the plaintiff has failed to place evidence to prove the Telugu movie produced by defendants 4 and 5 Kaidhi No.150 is remake of Kathi Tamil feature film which is based on the story SPM the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action - Undoubtedly the plaintiff is the copy right owner over the literary work SPM since he has registered the same with the third defendant on 10.04.2013. But that does not give him any right to sue the defendants alleging that the movie Kathi is based on his script since there is no similarity either in idea or subject matter the play or the expression or the ideas. Since the plaintiff has failed to prove his case of infringement no case for rendition of accounts from the defendants is made out. As the consequence the plaintiff is not entitled for compensation and damages. Suit dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit against Defendants 4 and 5. 2. Legal right or ownership of alleged copyright over the literary work "Sirgazhi Pakkam Mathanam" (SPM). 3. Infringement of the plaintiff's copyright by the defendants in the film "Kathi". 4. Plaintiff's rights over the Telugu film "Kaidhi No.150". 5. Entitlement to rendition of accounts of profits earned from the film "Kathi". 6. Entitlement to damages and compensation for infringement of the copyright. 7. Entitlement to any other relief. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the suit against Defendants 4 and 5: The court found that the suit against Defendants 4 and 5, who are assignees of the remake rights of the film "Kathi" in Telugu, lacked cause of action and was barred by limitation. The plaintiff's earlier suit was withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh suit, thus the present suit was hit by Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C. Consequently, the suit against Defendants 4 and 5 was dismissed for want of cause of action. 2. Legal right or ownership of alleged copyright over the literary work "Sirgazhi Pakkam Mathanam" (SPM): The court acknowledged that the plaintiff is the copyright owner of the literary work "SPM," as it was registered with the third defendant on 10.04.2013. However, this ownership did not grant the plaintiff any right to sue the defendants for the movie "Kathi," as there was no similarity in the idea, subject matter, play, or expression of the ideas between the two works. 3. Infringement of the plaintiff's copyright by the defendants in the film "Kathi": The court compared the scripts and found no similarity between the plaintiff's script "SPM" and the film "Kathi." The alleged similarities pointed out by the plaintiff were deemed irrelevant and improper. The court concluded that neither the idea nor the expression in the two works was the same, and the plaintiff failed to prove that his form, manner, arrangement, and expression of the idea had been infringed by the defendants. The court noted that the plaintiff's script centered around emotional relationships, whereas "Kathi" dealt with land grabbing by industrialists, with no fundamental or substantial similarity in the mode of expression. 4. Plaintiff's rights over the Telugu film "Kaidhi No.150": The court found that the plaintiff failed to produce any document to show a connection between the Telugu movie "Kaidhi No.150" and his script "SPM." Since the plaintiff could not establish that "Kaidhi No.150" was a remake of "Kathi," which was allegedly based on "SPM," the suit was dismissed for want of cause of action. 5. Entitlement to rendition of accounts of profits earned from the film "Kathi": Given that the plaintiff failed to prove any infringement of his copyright, the court found no basis for ordering the defendants to render accounts of profits earned from the film "Kathi." 6. Entitlement to damages and compensation for infringement of the copyright: Since the plaintiff did not establish any infringement, the court ruled that he was not entitled to any damages or compensation from the defendants. 7. Entitlement to any other relief: The court dismissed the suit in its entirety, including any other relief sought by the plaintiff, as he failed to prove his case. Conclusion: The suit was dismissed with costs, as the court found no merit in the plaintiff's claims of copyright infringement. The plaintiff's allegations were not supported by evidence, and the comparative analysis presented by the plaintiff was found to be distorted and irrelevant. The court upheld the defendants' rights over the film "Kathi" and its Telugu remake "Kaidhi No.150."
|
