MANU/MH/1332/2011

Equivalent Citation: 2012(114)BomLR7

citation image

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Appeal (Lodging) No. 695 of 2011 in Notice of Motion No. of 2011 in Suit (Lodging) No. 2847 of 2011 Decided On: 21.10.2011 Appellants: Mr. Yash Patnaik and another Vs. Respondent: Red Chillies Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and others Hon'ble Judges: Mohit S. Shah, C.J. and Smt. Roshan Dalvi, J. Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. Ravi Kadam, Advocate General, Mr. Pranav Sampat and Mr. Ramola Joshi i/by M/s. Thakore JariwalaAssociates For Respondents/Defendant: Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shiraz Ruystomjee, Senior Advocate with Mr. Farhad Sorabjee, Mr. Shahen Pradhan and Ms. Prama Arora i/by, M/s. J. SagarAssociates for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 and Mr. Janak Dwarkadas Senior Advocate with Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate, Mr. Akshay Patil i/by, Mr. R.M. Azim for respondent No. 5 Subject: Intellectual Property Rights Case Note: Intellectual Property Right Copyright Concept note registered with Film Writers Association Entitlement to injunction Whether Appellant was entitled to grant of injunction? Held, averments made by the Plaintiffs in the plaint read with the annexures thereto and including the concept note of the first Plaintiff registered with the Film Writers Associations, were sufficient at this stage to enable the Court to hold prima facie that the first Plaintiff had copyright in the concept embodied in the said concept note including the materials graphics, illustrations and drawings, monograms and the scenes and the pictures of the flying robots in the gadgets. The first Plaintiff had handed over the concept note and the other material to Defendant No. 4 and Defendant No. 4 had encouraged Plaintiff No. 1 to further develop and submit more detailed characters, outdoor designs etc. for the project. Although the Defendants had commenced promotions of the film RA One, according to the Defendants, in January 2011, it was when the Defendants released more evidence to connect the content created by him with that produced by the Defendants. Plaintiff No. was convinced that the scenes in the film were exact lift from the presentation submitted by Respondent Defendant No. 2 to Defendant No. 4 by the end of 2006. Therefore, injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents, representatives, media partners,

2012-04-23

Source : www.manupatra.com Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur

distributors, exhibitors, licensees and merchandisers from releasing/exhibiting/exploiting/broadcasting/telecasting the film RA One in theatre or over satellite or video or DVD or otherwise howsoever granted. Appeal disposed of. JUDGMENT 1. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find considerable substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs that the averments made by the plaintiffs in the plaint read with the annexures thereto and including the concept note of the first plaintiff registered with the Film Writers Associations, Mumbai on 26 December 2006. are sufficient at this stage to enable the Court to hold prima facie that the first plaintiff has copyright in the concept embodied in the said concept note including the materials graphics, illustrations and drawings, monograms and the scenes and the pictures of the flying robots in the gadgets. The undisputed averments in the plaint indicate that the first plaintiff had handed over the concept note and the other material to defendant No. 4 in November/December 2006 and defendant No. 4 had encouraged the first plaintiff to further develop and submit more detailed characters, outdoor designs etc. for the project. None of the defendants not even defendant No. 4 has filed any reply to the notice of motion or written statement to the plaint nor given any reply to the notice dated 1 October 2011. 2. We also find substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellants-plaintiffs that the ad-interim relief should not have been declined on the ground of delay. Although the defendants had commenced promotions of the film RA One, according to the defendants, in January 2011, it was when the defendants released more content and visuals of the film in public domain that the first plaintiff found credible evidence to connect the content created by him with that produced by the defendants. It was particularly when the first plaintiff found that the promotion of the film as per the posters and publicity materials of the film indicated the name of defendant No. 4 as screen play writer of the film that the first plaintiff immediately realised that the defendants were acting upon the concept note and the material supplied by the first plaintiff to defendant No. 4. In fact, it was in one of the recently released thearitical promos to the plaintiffs' notice where the lead character of the film stands on a high rise overlooking the cityscape with the water body in the foreground which was the same as the end page in the plaintiffs' concept note. The first plaintiff was, therefore, convinced that the scenes in the film are exact lift from the presentation submitted by respondent defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 4 by the end of 2006. 3. In view of the uncontroverted averments in the plaint, in our view, the appellant-plaintiff has, at this stage, satisfactorily answered both the objections of the defendants which had commended to the learned trial Judge. The efforts put in by the first plaintiff commencing from 2002 including the concept note and the development of the concept and the story line by the plaintiff are sufficient to confer upon the first plaintiff the copyright in the concept note and the other material developing the said concept which prima facie appears to have been relied upon by the defendants for making the film RA One. 4. In view of the above, we are inclined to grant injunction as prayed for in the Notice of Motion in this appeal, in terms of prayer clause (e) which reads as under:(e) In the alternative and without prejudice to prayer (d), this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an order of injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents, representatives, media partners, distributors, exhibitors, licensees and merchandisers from releasing/exhibiting/exploiting/broadcasting/telecasting the film `RA One' in theatre or over satellite or video or DVD or otherwise howsoever. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 states and undertakes, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the defendants, that the defendants shall deposit Rs.1 crore in this Court by a Demand Draft in the name of Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court by tomorrow viz. 22 October 2011.

2012-04-23

Source : www.manupatra.com Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur

6. The undertaking is accepted. In case of default, there shall be an injunction in terms of prayer clause (e) of Notice of Motion in this appeal. 7. It is clarified that the deposit by defendants shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and shall abide by further orders which will be passed in the notice of motion. 8. Appeal as well as Notice of Motion in this appeal are accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

2012-04-23

Source : www.manupatra.com Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur