Yash Raj Films Wins Copyright Case Against Sri Sai Ganesh Productions

CITATIONS:

Yash Raj Films Pvt Ltd vs Sri Sai Ganesh Productions & Ors., CS(COMM) 1329/2016, AIRONLINE 2019 DEL 1017

BRIEF FACTS:

Yash Raj Films Pvt Ltd, the plaintiff, brought a suit against Sri Sai Ganesh Productions & Ors., the defendants, for copyright infringement, seeking permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, and damages. The plaintiff asserted ownership of copyright in the film “BAND BAAJA BAARAAT” and alleged that the defendants had unlawfully remade the film in Telugu without permission, releasing it as “JABARDASTH.” Despite legal notices, the defendants proceeded with the release, prompting the plaintiff to seek legal recourse.

ISSUES FRAMED:

1. Did the defendants infringe upon the copyright of the plaintiff’s film?
2. Did the Delhi High Court have jurisdiction to hear the case?
3. Did the defendants have a valid defence against the allegations of copyright infringement?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER:

• The plaintiff contended that the defendants’ film was a blatant copy of their original work, both in substance and expression.
• They presented evidence showcasing the striking similarities between the two films, including plot, character sketches, and dialogues.
• The plaintiff argued that the reviews of the defendants’ film further confirmed the infringement, as critics noted its resemblance to the plaintiff’s work.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE DEFENDANT:

• The defendants argued that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction as their film was conceived, written, and directed in Hyderabad.
• They did not provide substantial rebuttal to the evidence presented by the plaintiff, nor did they deny the allegations of copyright infringement.

JUDGEMENT:

The Delhi High Court decreed in favour of the plaintiff, holding the defendants liable for copyright infringement. The Court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from further infringing the plaintiff’s copyright in “BAND BAAJA BAARAAT.” Additionally, the defendants were directed to render accounts of income received from the infringing film and pay damages to the plaintiff. Costs were also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.

RATIO DECENDI:

1. The Court emphasized that copyright subsists in a cinematograph film as a work independent of underlying works, and infringement occurs if another film substantially reproduces essential features of the original.
2. The jurisdiction of the Court was affirmed based on the nationwide release of the infringing film, including in Delhi.

The defendants’ failure to rebut the plaintiff’s evidence and provide a defence led to a decree in favour of the plaintiff, reinforcing the principle of copyright protection.