yash patnaik v red chillies

7/31/2019 Yash Patnaik v Red Chillies

1/3

MANU/MH/1332/2011

Equivalent Citation: 2012(114)BomLR7

I N THE HI GH COURT OF BOMBAY

Appeal (Lodging) No. 695 of 2011 in Notice of Motion No. of 2011 in Suit (Lodging) No. 2847 of2011

Decided On: 21.10.2011

Appellants: Mr. Yash Patnaik and another Vs.

Respondent: Red Chillies Enter tainm ent Pvt . Ltd. and ot hers

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 andMr. Ramola Joshi i/by M/s. Thakore JariwalaAssociates

For Respondents/Defendant: Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. ShirazRuystomjee, Senior Advocate with Mr. Farhad Sorabjee, Mr. Shahen Pradhan and Ms. PramaArora i/by, M/s. J. SagarAssociates for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 and Mr. Janak DwarkadasSenior Advocate with Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate, Mr. Akshay Patil i/by, Mr. R.M.Azim for respondent No. 5

Subject: I ntellectual Propert y Rights

Case Not e:I ntellectual Property Right Copyright Concept note registered w ith Film W riter s

Association Entitlement to injunction Whether Appellant was entitled to grant of

injunction?

Held, averments made by the Plainti f fs in the plaint read with the annexures thereto

and including the concept note of the first Plaintiff registered with the Film Writers

Associations, we re sufficient at this stage to ena ble the Court t o hold prima facie that

the first Plaintiff had copyright in the concept embodied in the said concept note

including the materials graphics, i l lustrations and drawings, monograms and the

scenes and the pictures of the flying robots in the gadgets. The first Plaintiff hadhanded over the concept note and the other material to Defendant No. 4 and

Defendant No. 4 had encouraged Plainti f f No. 1 to further develop and submit more

detailed characters, outdoor designs etc. for the proj ect. Although t he Defe ndants had

commenced promotions of the fi lm RA One, according to the Defendants, in January

2011, i t was when the Defendants released more evidence to connect the content

created by him w ith that produced by the Defendants. Plainti f f No. w as convinced thatthe scenes in the f i lm w ere ex act l if t 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,

citation image

2012-04-23 Source : www.manupatra.comIndian Institute of Technology Kharagpur


2/3

distributors, exhibitors, l icensees and merchandisers from

releasing/ exhibit ing/ exploit ing/ broadcasting/ telecasting the f i lm RA One in

theatre or over satel l i te 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 thearguments of the learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs that the averments made by theplaintiffs in the plaint read with the annexures thereto and including the concept note of thefirst plaintiff registered with the Film Writers Associations, Mumbai on 26 December 2006. aresufficient at this stage to enable the Court to hold prima facie that the first plaintiff hascopyright 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 inthe gadgets. The undisputed averments in the plaint indicate that the first plaintiff had handedover the concept note and the other material to defendant No. 4 in November/December 2006and defendant No. 4 had encouraged the first plaintiff to further develop and submit moredetailed characters, outdoor designs etc. for the project. None of the defendants not evendefendant 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 thead-interim relief should not have been declined on the ground of delay. Although thedefendants had commenced promotions of the film RA One, according to the defendants, inJanuary 2011, it was when the defendants released more content and visuals of the film inpublic domain that the first plaintiff found credible evidence to connect the content created byhim with that produced by the defendants. It was particularly when the first plaintiff found thatthe promotion of the film as per the posters and publicity materials of the film indicated thename of defendant No. 4 as screen play writer of the film that the first plaintiff immediatelyrealised that the defendants were acting upon the concept note and the material supplied bythe 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 riseoverlooking the cityscape with the water body in the foreground which was the same as the endpage in the plaintiffs' concept note. The first plaintiff was, therefore, convinced that the scenesin the film are exact lift from the presentation submitted by respondent defendant No. 2 todefendant No. 4 by the end of 2006.

3. In view of the uncontroverted averments in the plaint, in our view, the appellant-plaintiffhas, at this stage, satisfactorily answered both the objections of the defendants which hadcommended to the learned trial Judge. The efforts put in by the first plaintiff commencing from2002 including the concept note and the development of the concept and the story line by theplaintiff are sufficient to confer upon the first plaintiff the copyright in the concept note and theother 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 Motionin 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 bepleased to issue an order of injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents,representatives, media partners, distributors, exhibitors, licensees andmerchandisers 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 shalldeposit Rs.1 crore in this Court by a Demand Draft in the name of Prothonotary & Senior Masterof this Court by tomorrow viz. 22 October 2011.



3/3

6. The undertaking is accepted. In case of default, there shall be an injunction in terms ofprayer 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 andcontentions of the parties and shall abide by further orders which will be passed in the notice ofmotion.

8. Appeal as well as Notice of Motion in this appeal are accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaidterms.

Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.


yash patnaik v red chillies

Documents