MOSERBAER INDIA LIMITED Vs. MOVIE LAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff filed this suit claiming therein that the plaintiff had video Copyright of 66 South Indian Films given in paragraph 3 of the plaint. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, who were having their offices in Chennai were infringing copyright of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 was a company duly registered under the Companies Act and defendants No. 2 to 6 were retail shopkeepers who were selling the films provided by defendant No. 1. Plaintiff claimed that its valuable and exclusive video rights in respect of 53 South indian Films acquired from M/s West Top Investment India Pvt. Ltd. by virtue of an agreement dated 28th July 2006 for consideration of Rs. 25. 3 million were being infringed by the defendants. The plaintiff also claimed that it had acquired video rights in respect of 10 films from M/s. Shree Devi Video corporation by virtue of an agreement dated 29th July 2006 for a consideration of Rs. 9. 5 million. The plaintiff pleaded that it also acquired video rights for film Ullam Ketkume from G. V. Films by virtue of an agreement dated 26th December 2006 for a sum of Rs. 3 lac and in respect of the film Mouna Geethagal from M/s n. S. Enterprises by virtue of an agreement dated 25. 7. 2006. It is stated that the plaintiff was having video rights in respect of all 66 South Indian Films and the defendants by selling video tapes/cds/dvds of the above films were infringing the rights of the plaintiff.

(2.) THE plaintiff by the above two applications under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC has prayed the Court for issuing interim injunction restraining the defendants, servants, officers, distributors from manufacturing, selling, circulating or distributing the video cassettes, VCDs/dvds/lcds of 66 South indian Films as mentioned by the plaintiff, during pendency of suit.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 1 in its reply stated that defendant No. 1 was dealing in manufacturing and distributors of VCDs and DVDs in Chennai. Defendant No. 1 purchased copyrights of more than 1450 Tamil Films. Defendant No. 1 purchased copyrights and negatives of the films either from the original producers of the films or from copyrights holders for VCDs and DVDs. Defendant No. 1 had released more than 570 Tamil Films on VCDs and more than 230 films on DVDs. Defendant no. 1 had purchased copyrights of all such Films from the respective copyrights holders before starting Manufacturing DVDs and VCDs of the films. Defendant No. 1 vide an agreement dated 4. 12. 1998 between Defendant No. 1 and M/s O. K. Films purchased the copyrights of 100 titles of films. Vide agreement dated 27th december, 2002, between defendant O. K. Films copyrights of 74 titles of films were purchased, vide agreement dated 15th October 2003 between M/s Thruvalla kallakodam and M/s Movieland he purchased copyrights of 4 titles of the films, vide lease agreement dated 6. 5. 2005 between Meta Audio and defendant No. 1 copyrights of one title was purchased. Copies of all these agreements have been placed on record. It is stated that due to business rivalry, one rival company m/s West Top Investment India Pvt. Ltd and Shree Devi Corporation sold the copyrights of even those title of films which belonged to defendant No. 1, to the plaintiff and to some other companies. After coming to know of such sale, defendant No. 1 filed a suit in the High Court of Judicature at Madras being Suit no. 474 of 2007. It is stated that defendant No. 1 also found that another firm modern Cinema based in Madras was producing and selling DVDs of the films copyrights of which was with the defendant so defendant No. 1 filed a suit against Modern Cinema being Suit No. CS No. 213 of 2005 at High Court of judicature at Madras. Defendant No. 1 also filed a suit against M/s Modern Cinema at Madras being CS No. 333 of 2007 seeking injunction from exploitation and infringement of copyrights of about 100 films held by defendant No. 1 and vide an order dated 19th April, 2007, an interim injunction was granted by the High court of Judicature at Madras from exploitation and infringement of copyrights of defendant No. 1 in respect of titles as mentioned in the order. Defendant No. 1 filed another suit under Section 52 and 65 of Indian Copyrights Act before the high Court of Judicature at Madras seeking declaration of its absolute ownership of the copyright and VCDs and DVDs and LCDs rights for entire India in respect of films mentioned in the schedule and seeking permanent injunction against defendants and their agents from infringing the copyrights. It is submitted that huge litigation was going on between plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and other parties before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. Defendant No. 1 enumerated the various litigations pending between the parties in an application under order 10 CPC, made by the defendant No. 1 for stay of proceedings. Defendant No. 1 submitted that though the plaintiff was litigating at Chennai, in order to harass the defendant No. 1, plaintiff filed the instant suit in Delhi seeking injunction initially against defendant No. 1 and, thereafter, plaintiff, in order to pressurize, made the shopkeepers and distributors also as parties to the suit by way of amendment. It is submitted that defendant No. 1 was holding valid copyrights in respect of the films being distributed by defendant No. 1 and which have been listed by the plaintiff in the plaint as its own copyrights. Defendant no. 1 placed on record various agreements in respect of the films of which defendant No. 1 had copyrights.