901-NMSL502-2014.DOC agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 502 OF 2014 IN SUIT NO. 219 OF 2014 MANSOOB HAIDER, Aged 44 years, of Mumbai, Indian inhabitant, having address at 301-A Block, Benston, Behind i!vi College, Off Carter Road, Bandra $%est&, Mumbai 400 050 ( Plaintiff versus 1. YASHRAJ FILMS PVT LTD A com*any duly incor*orated under the Com*anies Act, 195, having its address at 5, Shah Industrial Estate, Veera Desai oad, Andheri (%est&, Mumbai 400 053 2. ADITYA CHO RA, Of Mumbai, Indian inhabitant having address at 5, Shah Industrial .state, /eera Desai Road, Andheri Bombay$%est&, Mumbai 400 High053 Court !. VIJAY "RISHNA ACHARYA, Of Mumbai, Indian inhabitant having office at 5, -hah Industrial .state, /eera Desai Road, Andheri $%est&, Mumbai 400 053 1 #$ !1 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2014 14:20:45 ::: 901-NMSL502-2014.DOC 4. MULTI SCREEN MEDIA VT LTD, $)opularly kno1n as 2-ony 3/4& address at Interface Building No.7, 4th Floor, Off Malad Link oad, Malad (%est&, Mumbai 400 0,4 5. MSM SATELLITE (SINGA ORE) TE LTD, Having address at 5, Tam*ines Central 6, #0<-19, Tele*ark Building, Singa*ore 5<+4=< 666 0efendants APPEARANCES FOR THE PLAINTIFF M%. C&'%() M#*', with Mr. Ashok Purohit, Ms. Shalaka Mali, i/b Ashok Purohit & Co., FOR DEFENDANTS NOS. M%. V. R. D&#+*, Seni#% A*.#/(0-, with 1-3 Mr. Rashmin Khandekar, i/b Keystone Partners, FOR DEFENDANTS NOS. 4 M%. R.M. K(*(1, Seni#% A*.#/(0-, with & 5 Mr. Prakash Shah, Mr. Dur a!rasad Poo"ari, i/b PDS #e al, $or de$endants %o. & and 5. CORAM : G.S.PATEL, J. DATED : 20th Ju e 2014 BombayP.C." High Court A. SUMMARY 1. 3he )laintiff, a *rofessional film scri*t 1riter, and 1hose father 1rote scri*ts and dialogue for notable films, is the author of 2 #$ !1 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2014 14:20:45 ::: 901-NMSL502-2014.DOC the film scri*t entitled 2ONCE46 3he entirety of this scri*t is anne>ed to the *laint at .>hibit “B”6 3he )laintiff claims that a recently released film, Dhoom 3, infringes the Plaintiff?s copyright in his scri*t 2#5".46 In the suit, the Plaintiff seeks an order that he be given credit in the titles of the film6 2. 3he )laintiff claims that he had delivered this scri*t to 1st Defendant?s office6 3hree years later, the film Dhoom ( 1as released6 3he )laintiff sa1 the film6 He says he then realised that the film and his original scri*t 1ere so similar that the only *ossibility 1as that the 1st 0efendant and, in *articular, Defendant 5os6 < and 3, credited as co-authors of the film scri*t for Dhoom ( $the 3rd 0efendant being the director of the film& had infringed the Plaintiff?s copyright in his original work6 3he )laintiff then filed the suit. I 1ill deal 1ith the rival contentions *resently6 3he 5otice of Motion at this stage is for a limited *ur*ose6 It seeks a restraint on Defendant 5os6 1 to 3 from releasing the film on <=th @une <014 via satellite broadcast on television channel6 3his is *ro*osed to be done by the 4th and 5th 0efendants, 1ho run several television channels under the name -ony T/6 !. I must note that at this stage there is one significant hurdle in the Plaintiff?s 1ayA this film has already enjoyed a general *ublic release in December <0136 It has then been released in various Bombayother media and forums, includingHigh most recently on 0/0Court and "06 5o injunction has been obtained by the )laintiff in res*ect of those releases6 3he Plaintiff, therefore, has an additional burden to sho1 ho1 the release of the film on television channels via satellite broadcast will so preBudice him that an injunction must be granted6 I ! #$ !1 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2014 14:20:45 ::: 901-NMSL502-2014.DOC must also note that only relief sought in this suit is for the credit in the film; there is no claim for damages6 4. I have heard Mr6 Modi, learned counsel for the Plaintiff, Mr6 Dhond, learned senior counsel for Defendants 5o. 1 to 3 and Mr6 Dadam, learned -enior Counsel for Defendant 5o.4 at some considerable length. I have considered the very large volume of affidavits and *leadings filed, the many authorities cited and the oral arguments6 I must straighta1ay state that, in my vie1, albeit at a !rima)$a*ie stage, the )laintiff has not made out a sufficient case for the grant of injunctive reliefs in the terms sought in the 5otice of Motion. He has not been able to demonstrate, even !rima)$a*ie, any infringement. He has not sho1n irretrievable injury or *reBudice6 He has not been able to sho1 ho1 the balance of convenience is in his favour es*ecially given the 1ide general release and the fact that a restraint is bound to result in significant financial loss to the Defendants6 B. FACTUAL BAC"GROUND 5. 3hese are the factsA On 17th 0ecember <00+ the )laintiff registered his scri*t 1ith the "opyright Board6 3his is not in dis*ute6 -ometime in early <010, the Plaintiff claims, he submitted his literary 1ork, i6e6, the film scri*t, to the 1st Defendant. 3here is Bombayvery great deal of controversy High about this, and a legal submissionCourt will turn on it as 1ell6 I 1ill turn to those submissions *resently6 On <0th December <013, the film, Dhoom ( 1as released6 3he Plaintiff claims to have seen the film very the ne>t day after its general *ublic release6 At this, the )laintiff says, he 1as shocked to see the 4 #$ !1 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2014 14:20:45 ::: 901-NMSL502-2014.DOC similarities between his four year old scri*t and the ne1 movie6 He attem*ted to visit the offices of the 1st Defendant to *lace his case that his original scri*t had been used in making of this film and that his copyright had been infringed6 3he )laintiff, by all counts, seems to have been rebuffed in his attem*ts at a meeting, at least at this stage6 3here then follo1ed some corres*ondence between the Plaintiff and re*resentatives of 0efendants 5o. 1 to 36 Again, this corres*ondence has a bearing on a legal issue and I 1ill consider it in slightly more detail 1hen deciding that issue6 3his corres*ondence continued from 0ecember <013 till early 8ebruary <0146 On 7th 8ebruary <014, the Plaintiff through his Advocates sent a notice to the 0efendants reiterating his claim6 In this legal notice, the )laintiff demanded that the 0efendants 5o. 1 to 3 cease further distribution of film and give credit to the Plaintiff as a scri*t 1riter of the film6 3he )laintiff also reserved to himself the right to claim damages6 A re*ly follo1ed on 10th February <014 refuting the Plaintiff?s contentions but offering a settlement. Although at some *oint in the arguments, Mr6 Modi attem*ted to gain some mileage from this offer, I am inclined to believe that this 1as merely a good faith offer to avoid the costs of litigation; something that seems, unfortunately, not to have come to *ass6 3he corres*ondence between the Plaintiff?s advocates and 1st to 3rd 0efendants? continued through the middle of 8ebruary <0146 #n 3rd March <014, the )laintiff filed the *resent -uit. 3he 5otice of Motion, Bombayfiled on or about the same High day, contains a *rayer broadlyCourt 1orded injunction in *rayers $a& and $b&6 All that survives today is an injunction from release on television by satellite broadcast6 I must note, once again, that there is no claim for damages6 5o leave under 5 #$ !1 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2014 14:20:45 ::: 901-NMSL502-2014.DOC Order II ule < a**ears to have been obtained by the )laintiff till date6 C. THE CLAIM IN BRIEF 2. Dhoom ( is *art of a franchise, the third in the series6 All three films deal 1ith a certain some1hat genial class of criminals and generally delightful e>*ert thieves6 3he films tell of the attem*ts being made by a *olice officer and his assistant $*layed by Mr6 Abhishek Bachchan and Mr6 Eday "hopra, the latter *roviding some comic elements& to ca*ture these thieves6 3he *olice are not successful in ways they intend, and there is a certain admiration and em*athy for the thieves and their inventive and often s*ectacular heists6 3. What *recisely is the Plaintiff?s claimF He says that if one dissects the film and his scri*t and chalks out com*onent elements side by side, there is far too much of a coincidence to be inadvertence6 In .>hibit 2"4 to the *laint, the Plaintiff *resents a com*arative chart6 3his chart *ur*orts to analyse the similarities between the Plaintiff?s scri*t and the film6 3his chart, in fact, is the bedrock of the )laintiff?s case6 Mr6 Modi *oints out that from this tabulation there are very many elements that are common to both the film and the )laintiff?s scri*t. 3ake these common elements out Bombayof the film, Mr6 Modi submits, High and there is no film at all6Court Therefore, the submission is not only that there is a similarity but that there is so much in the film that is co*ied from the scri*t that this cannot be mere coincidence or ha**enstance6 It is a deliberate attem*t to copy the )laintiff?s 1ork and constitutes an infringement.