SAINA VIDEO VISION Vs. CENTURY FILMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute is pertaining to the ownership of copy right pertaining to cinematographs (32 Malayalam movies). It is the subject matter of an assignment under Ext.A1 dtd. 17/04/1996 in favour of the second defendant by the owner/producer of the movies, the first defendant/first counter petitioner, from whom the plaintiff/petitioner had obtained internet and internet related rights under Ext.A2 assignment deed dtd. 11/11/2006. While so, the original producer, the first defendant had assigned internet and internet related rights to the third defendant and they began to use the said right over the 32 movies scheduled in the plaint. Hence, the plaintiff approached the civil court for declaration of their right over the 32 cinematographs (Malayalam movies) and obtained an ad interim injunction against the defendants. The third defendant in turn contested the interim injunction application claiming that they have purchased internet and internet related rights from the original owner/producer, the first defendant subsequently. Initially, an ex parte ad interim injunction was granted. But on appearance of the defendant and after hearing both the parties, the interim injunction was vacated and the application was dismissed by the trial court. It is against that order, the plaintiff/petitioner came up in appeal.

(2.) The trial court dismissed the injunction application mainly relying on the decision rendered by the High Court of Madras in Raj Video Vision v. K.Mohanakannan (1998 KHC 2341). The claim of third defendant, who is litigating under the original owner of the movies (the producer) based on a subsequent assignment of internet and allied rights claims that the internet facility being a subsequent scientific invention, it was not contemplated at the time when Ext.A2 assignment was given and as such, the parties would stand governed by Sec. 14 of the Copyright Act and Ext.A2 document, the assignment given will not take away the internet and internet related rights over the movies and it will stand vested with the original producer being the original owner of copyright. Thus, the subsequent purchase/assignment in favour of the third defendant is valid, it was contended. Hence, the question came up for consideration is whether Ext.A2 assignment would cover all the copyright held by the original owner of the copyright and what would be the legal position as to any right, which was not contemplated or in existence at the time when the assignment was given.

(3.) Sec. 14 of the Copyright Act is extracted below for reference: