2017 (5) TMI 265 - HC - Indian Laws

Copyright violation - Held that - The question of whether or not there is a violation of copyright is one that must be addressed in the first instance by the producer of the film, viz., the 1st Defendant, not by Zee. At the same time Zee s interests, particularly in regard to the amount it paid to the 1st Defendant, must be suitably ring-fenced, pending the determination of whether or not there is a case made out of copyright violation. Thus will, therefore, and even in the absence of a formal application for this purpose, direct that Zee be joined as Defendant No. 9 to the present Suit. That amendment is to be carried out by 28th April 2017 without need of reverification. Copies of the Plaint, Notice of Motion and of all Affidavits are to be served on the Advocates for Zee. The question of whether or not Zee is permitted to telecast the offending film will necessarily turn on what the 1st Defendant has to say on this subject. As only noted that there is a very large volume of material already annexed to the Plaint that prima facie indicates that the 1st Defendant has not denied that the Kannada film is a remake of the Korean original. This material will have to be assessed.

Issues:
1. Amendment to show the 1st Defendant as a sole partnership of Vikhya Chitra Productions.
2. Compliance with disclosure Affidavit by the 1st Defendant.
3. Submission of the script, DVD copies, and film credits details by the 1st Defendant.
4. Personal appearance of the 1st Defendant in Court.
5. Joining Zee Entertainment as Defendant No. 9 in the suit.
6. Protection of Zee Entertainment's rights as an assignee.
7. Determination of Zee Entertainment's telecast rights for the film.
8. Urgency in addressing the matter due to Zee's telecast rights.

Analysis:
1. The court granted leave to amend the pleadings to reflect the 1st Defendant as a sole partnership of Vikhya Chitra Productions. This amendment was allowed to ensure clarity and accuracy in the legal proceedings.

2. The 1st Defendant was required to file a disclosure Affidavit in compliance with a previous court order. The court noted that the 1st Defendant had been served through various modes, including email and WhatsApp, establishing sufficient service.

3. The court directed the 1st Defendant to bring the script of the Kannada film Pushpaka Viman, two certified DVD copies of the film, and all details of the film credits to be presented in both the opening and ending title sequences by a specified date.

4. It was mandated that the 1st Defendant must personally appear in Court on a specific date, with immediate steps to be taken if there was a default in attendance.

5. Zee Entertainment, claiming to be an assignee for valuable consideration from the 1st Defendant, sought to protect its rights in the proceedings. The court decided to join Zee Entertainment as Defendant No. 9 in the ongoing suit to safeguard its interests.

6. The court acknowledged Zee Entertainment's financial investment and directed that its rights should be ring-fenced pending the determination of any copyright violation by the 1st Defendant. Zee Entertainment's potential claim against the 1st Defendant was recognized in case of a copyright infringement.

7. The court highlighted the importance of assessing whether Zee Entertainment would be permitted to telecast the film in question, emphasizing the need to consider the evidence indicating the film as a remake of a Korean original.

8. Due to the urgency of the matter, especially concerning Zee Entertainment's telecast rights during the upcoming summer period, the court scheduled a hearing to address the issue promptly. The court intended to hear the parties and address Zee Entertainment's Notice of Motion on a specified date.

← Previous Next →