INTRODUCTION
This particular case of YRF V. Sri Sai Ganesh Productions is about copyright issues concerning cinematograph films. The plaintiff, a leading film production company, has accused the defendants of having copied Band Baaja Baaraat, a film produced by the plaintiff, in their Telugu remake Jabardasth. The plaintiff further submitted that the defendants made copies of not only the story but also of other important elements like plot, character sketches, dialogue, and expression, which would amount to the violation of rights provided under the Copyright Act, 1957. The issues raised were significant ones touching on the copyright of cinematograph films, tests of substantial similarity between two works, and territorial jurisdiction over courts in adjudicating such disputes, especially when the impugned work was generated outside the jurisdiction of the court but released within it.
FACTS
Yash Raj Films (YRF) Pvt. Ltd. is considered one of the renowned production houses in the Indian film industry. The company owns copyrights for various Indian films. One such film is the 2010 released Band Baaja Baaraat, for which it owns the storyline, dialogues, themes, characters, and screenplay related to the film. This film of the plaintiff was critically acclaimed and was a success, gaining accolades and revenue.
In the following year, the same plaintiff’s production company decided to remake the film in Tamil and Telugu languages, for which they issued a public notice providing clarity that they owned and were retaining the exclusive rights for the remake. However, it came to the plaintiff’s attention that the defendant production company Sri Sai Ganesh Productions, was planning to remake the film in Telugu without proper rights or authorization.
Therefore, the YRF issued legal notices, but despite the notices, the defendant made and produced the Telugu remake of the film titled Jabardasth which was eventually released in the year 2013. Upon the release, the plaintiff identified that it was a “blatant copy” of the original film. The said defendant also went on to sell the rights of the impugned film for a Tamil dubbed version. In its entirety, all these circumstances put the plaintiff in a position to file a copyright infringement suit.
- Whether the defendant production company infringe the plaintiff production’s copyright to the original works of the Band Baaja Baaraat film in the category of cinematography films?
- Whether the phrase “to make a copy of the film” under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, restricted to only physical copies?
- Whether the High Court of Delhi, have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the case, given the fact that the impugned movie was based out in Hyderabad?
ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff’s Arguments
The plaintiff put forth their arguments that there was a blatant copying of just about everything including “story, theme, concept, plot, character sketches, and overall expression” of their movie Band Baaja Baarat in the Telugu films Jabardasth. They contended that what was seen and the treatment given to the plot was similar enough to constitute an infringement of copyright. The plaintiff added that the similarities were significant and material enough to convey to any viewer of both films an unmistakable impression that the defendant’s work was a reproduction of that of the plaintiff. They further brought out into the glare of publicity reviews of the impugned film describing it as an outright duplicate without the preceding compounding all respects, of Band Baaja Baaraat.
Defendant’s Arguments
The defendant’s major point of argument was concerning the jurisdictional aspect. The defendant challenged the territorial jurisdiction concerning the present matter on the ground that the film, Jabardasth, impugned here, had been completely created, written, and directed in Hyderabad. They emphasized that not a single frame, including post-production processes, was shot in New Delhi. The assertion was, therefore, that the cause of action being located in Hyderabad fails to tie it to Delhi, thus contesting the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit.
JUDGEMENT
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the defendants have literally copied the core, crucial, and distinctive aspects of the plaintiff’s film Band Baaja Baaraat, which amounted to copyright infringement. The court took note of the significant and material resemblance between the two films and said the evidence provided by the plaintiff was undeniable because of striking off the defence of the defendants. The court ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear the matter because the impugned film was released in Delhi. In light of the above-mentioned findings, the court decreed the suit against the defendant and granted the permanent injunction as prayed for in prayer clauses.
