M/S.Sun Tv Network Ltd v. Kumar Namburi

J U D G M E N T The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking injunction restraining the defendant from infringing copyright of the plaintiff with regard to the three films namely, Chalo, Nela Ticket, Pantham and also for damages. Plaint averments:

¶2According to the plaintiff, it is a leading television network engaged in the business of production and distribution of movies. It was claimed by the plaintiff that it entered into an assignment agreement with original producers of the Cinematograph films Chalo, Nela Ticket, Pantham on

06.12.2017, 09.03.2018 and 12.12.2017 respectively under Exs.P2, P9 and P14. Under the said agreement, the plaintiff got assignment of exclusive copyright of the film in respect of satellite television broadcast, direct to home broadcast, direct satellite service, terrestrial television broadcast and all other rights connected therewith as mentioned in the agreement including exhibition of the above mentioned films by means of wireless diffusion and by wire for communication to the public through television broadcast for the entire world. It was also claimed by the plaintiff that he paid a consideration of Rs.2,16,00,000/-, Rs.12,00,00,000/- and Rs.4,50,00,000/- respectively to the producers of above said films Chalo, Nela Ticket, Pantham as evidenced by supplementary agreements dated 08.06.2018 (Ex.P8), 14.08.2018 (Ex.P13) and 03.08.2018 (Ex.P19). Thus, the plaintiff claimed that he acquired the copyrights of the above said films as described. It was further averred in the plaint that the defendant, who was the owner of "Movies Cafe" had uploaded above said films in the you-tube, internet platform without any right, title and copyright. The defendant by illegally uploading the above said films infringed the copyright of the plaintiff. It was further averred by the plaintiff that after acquiring knowledge about the illegal act of the defendant, it had intimated you-tube about violation of copyright on 13.08.2019. After intimation by the plaintiff, the defendant temporarily removed the above said films from you-tube platform and he may at any time upload the same and continue to infringe the copyrights of the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit seeking injunction and damages for the loss suffered by it due to the act of infringement.

¶3It is seen from the records that the defendant was set ex-parte by this Court on 15.03.2021 and thereafter, ex-parte evidence was recorded. The authorized signatory of the plaintiff company was examined as PW.1 and through him 25 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P25.

¶4The learned counsel for the plaintiff relying on the evidence of PW.1 and exhibits marked on the side of the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is the proprietor of the copyrights of the above said films as it got valid assignment from first owner. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the infringement of copyright by the defendant causes irreparable loss and hardship to the plaintiff, who acquired copyrights of the films by paying valid consideration and consequently the suit is liable to be decreed.

¶5Exs.P6, P11 and P17 issued by Central Board of Films Certification would make it clear that the assignor of the plaintiff was the original/first owner of the copyright of the above mentioned films. Exs.P2, P9 and P14 are the assignment agreements between the plaintiff and the respective original owner/producer of the films. Under Ex.P2, the plaintiff got assignment of the copyright of the film "Chalo" for consideration of Rs.2,16,00,000/-. Under Ex.P9, the plaintiff got assignment of film "Nela ticket" for valid consideration of Rs.12,00,00,000/-. Under Ex.P14, the plaintiff got assignment of copyrights of the film "production No.7" for consideration of Rs.4,50,00,000/-.

¶6Exs.P3, P4 and P7 are the communications between the original producer, plaintiff and laboratory, which established receipt of video and audio contents of the film "chalo" by the plaintiff from the laboratory. Exs.P10, P12 are the communications between the plaintiff and laboratory, which confirms the receipt of video and audio content of the film "Nela ticket". Exs.P15, P16 and P18 are the communications between the plaintiff and laboratory, which confirms the receipt of video and audio content of the movie "Pantham" by the plaintiff.

¶7Ex.P8 is a supplementary agreement between the plaintiff and the assignor of the film "chalo", whereunder, the original owner/assignor confirmed the receipt of entire sale consideration of Rs.12,16,00,000/-. The handing over of the digital data files, HD etc., of the film to the plaintiff was also confirmed in the said agreement.

¶8Ex.P13 is the supplementary agreement between the plaintiff and assignor of the film "Nela ticket", where under, the payment of Rs.12,00,00,000/- by the plaintiff to the original owner/assignor was confirmed. It also confirms the handing over of the digital data files, HD etc., of the film to the plaintiff.

¶9Ex.P19 is the supplementary agreement between the plaintiff and the assignor of the film "production No.7", whose title was subsequently changed as "Pantham". The said agreement records the change of the title of the film from "production No.7" to "Pantham". Under the said agreement, the original owner/assignor acknowledged the receipt of Rs.4,50,00,000/- from the plaintiff and confirmed the delivery of digital files, HD etc., of the film to the plaintiff. Thus, the evidence of PW.1 coupled with the exhibits mentioned above prove that the plaintiff acquired the valid assignment of the copyrights in respect of above mentioned three films.

¶10Exs.P20, P21 and P22 are the screen shots produced by the plaintiff which prove the infringement of the plaintiff's copyright by the defendant. Ex.P23 is the communication by agent of the plaintiff to you-tube regarding the infringement of plaintiff copyrights. Ex.P24 is the notification from you-tube informing the agent of the plaintiff regarding removal of the objectionable content. A perusal of Exs.P20 to P24 prove the infringement of plaintiff's copyright by the defendant. The plaintiff is the assignee of the copyright of the above said films for valid consideration and hence any unauthorized exhibition of above said films or its contents by defendant would certainly result in irreparable loss and hardship to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent injunction as prayed for.

¶11As far as the claim for damages are concerned, the evidence of PW.1 is not sufficient to establish the actual loss suffered by the plaintiff. Exhibits marked by the plaintiff are not useful to quantify the alleged loss suffered by the plaintiff. It is also seen from Exs.P23 and 24, the objectionable content loaded in you-tube at the instance of defendant was removed after objection by the plaintiff. In such circumstances, in the absence of any acceptable evidence available on record, the plaintiff is not entitled to any damages. Therefore, the suit is dismissed in respect of prayer for damages is concerned.

¶12In nutshell,

(i) The suit is partly decreed by granting a decree for permanent injunction as prayed for.

(ii) The suit is dismissed, in respect of damages.

(iii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

31.03.2023 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No ub List of witness examined on the side of the plaintiff:- P.W.1. Mr.M.Jyothi Basu – Authorized Signatory of the Plaintiff-Company List of documents marked on the side of the plaintiff:- Sl. . EXHIBTS DATE DESCRIPTION P1

14.11.2011 Board Resolution P2

06.12.2017 Assignment Agreement between the Producer and Plaintiff P3

06.12.2017 Letter from the Producer to the Lab. P4

18.12.2017 Letter from the lab to the Plaintiff P5

24.01.2018 Amendment Agreement between the Producer and the Plaintiff P6

29.01.2018 Censor Certificate P7

30.01.2018 Receipt of content P8

08.06.2018 Supplementary Agreement between the Producer and the Plaintiff P9

09.03.2018 Assignment Agreement between the Producer and the Plaintiff P10

22.03.2018 Letter from the lab to the Plaintiff P11

22.05.2018 Censor Certificate P12

06.06.2018 Receipt of Content P13

14.08.2018 Supplementary Agreement between the Producer and the Plaintiff P14

12.12.2017 Assignment Agreement between the Producer and the Plaintiff P15

12.12.2017 Letter from the lab to the Plaintiff P16

26.06.2018 Letter from the lab to the Plaintiff P17

02.07.2018 Censor Certificate P18

05.07.2018 Receipt of Content P19

03.08.2018 Supplementary Agreement between the Producer and the Plaintiff Sl. . EXHIBTS DATE DESCRIPTION P20

13.08.2019 Proof of infringement of Plaintiff's copyright by the Defendant for the film CHALO P21 Proof of infringement of Plaintiff's copyright by the Defendant for the film NELA TICKET P22 Proof of infringement of Plaintiff's copyright by the Defendant for the film PANTHAM P23

13.08.2019 Online notifications by the Plaintiff P24 Proof of removal of the movie from You-Tube P25 Section 65B certificate List of witness examined on the side of the Defendant:--NIL-List of documents marked on the side of the Defendant:--NIL-

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

ub C.S.No.652 of 2019

31.03.2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 28.03.2023 PRONOUNCED ON : 31.03.2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR C.S.No.652 of 2019 M/s.Sun TV Network Ltd., Rep. By its Authorized Signatory, Mr.M.Jyothi Basu, Murasoli Maran Towers, 73, MRC Nagar Main Road, MRC Nagar, Chennai – 600 028. ... Plaintiff vs Kumar Namburi Proprietor "Movies Cafe", No.5M, HRBR Layout, Second Block, Kalyan Nagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 063. ... Defendant Prayer: Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, 1956, r/w Section 2(1) (c) (xvii) r/w first proviso of Section 7 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, (Act 4 of 2016 r/w Section 55 and 62 of the copyrights Act and order Vii Rule 1 of CPC praying to, (a) For permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, representatives, agents and anybody on behalf of the defendants from in anyway exhibiting or exploiting the schedule movies through satellite television broadcast direct to home broadcast, direct satellite service, internet video streaming through all forms, I.P.TV, broadband, telephone, telephony, cell phone radio (all dimensions) VCD, DVD, video on demand, movie on demand, video, high definition (HD), laser disc, blue ray, u-matic, inflight, airborne, railborne, terrestrial television broadcast (all dimensions), through cable/via cable TC, local delivery system, MMDS, paper view, seaborne, all modes of public/private transportation, public service broadcasting, private communication/broadcast, wire, wireless, 2D and 3D formats/dimensions of the film or any other formats/dimensions which may be in existence now or invented in future or through any other forms, means and modes and any forms of communication like signs, signals, writing, pictures, images and sounds of all kinds of transmission of electro magnetic waves through space or through cables intended to be received by the general public either directly or indirectly through the medium of relay stations and all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly or any other systems without restriction of geographical area for a perpetual period more particularly in the internet platform in any means and form (b) To pay damages of a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- to the plaintiff; (c) To pay cost and; (d) Passing such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. For Plaintiff : Mr.M.Narendran for M/s.King and Partridge For Respondent : set ex-parte