Delhi High Court: In an application filed for seeking temporary injunction for restraining defendant 1 and anybody on their behalf from commercializing the video adaptation in the television series of “Yakshini” on their website or on any other audio, video adaptation based substantially similar to the plaintiff’s work “Yakshini” on any other third-party media websites, Neena Bansal Krishna, J., held that the similarity of name cannot be the sole criteria, especially as it was a mythological character on which admittedly various works, movies and books are already available. Prima facie, there was nothing to reflect as copyright violation of expression of idea as asserted by the plaintiff.
The Court also stated that the video series is slated to be released tonight, it cannot be said that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff especially when the advertising about the series commenced way back from 10-05-2024.
Background:
The plaintiff was engaged in providing an online platform by the name of ‘Pocket FM’ through which it offers audio series and audiobooks. The plaintiff licenses its original literary work from copyright owners/authorized licensors and thereafter, adapts the same into audio works which were published on its platform. One such Agreement dated 18-07-2023 was executed between the plaintiff and Anand Usha Borkar who assigned his exclusive rights to his work titled “Yakshini” of which the plaintiff became the owner and he adapted and published the same as “audio series”. Accordingly, “Yakshini” series was developed and was officially launched on plaintiff’s platform on 30-05-2021.
In June 2022, the plaintiff approached the parent company of defendant 1, Star India Private Limited but the negotiations related to possible business engagement which involved adaptation of various works of the plaintiff including “Yakshini” audio series did not reach any fruitful conclusion. The plaintiff attempted to have signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement with defendant, which the defendant refused to sign. Thereafter, in response to the issue of Non-Disclosure Agreement, defendant 1 shared a “Release-Form” with the plaintiff, which relieved them of any liability with respect to any content that was shared by the plaintiff during the negotiation period. The plaintiff signed the same in good faith.
The plaintiff had submitted that in the first week of June 2024, it came across a Trailer on defendant 2’s website of a television series titled “Yakshini” on defendant 1’s official YouTube Channel “Disney+Hotstar”. From a preliminary viewing of the impugned Trailer, it appears that defendant 1 has made an unauthorized adaptation of plaintiff’s audio series “Yakshini”. It was also indicated that the impugned television series was set to be released on 14-06-2024 on defendant 1’s website.
Analysis:
The Court after perusal of facts and submission was of the view that, the plaintiff had submitted that they came to know about the video series only in the first week of June 2024 but it cannot be discounted at the outset that the plaintiff was in the same business and for him to say that he was not aware of what was happening in their business till just a few days before filing of the suit, is prima facie not tenable. This suit had been filed just a day prior to the slated release of the video series with no concrete facts to establish that there is a prima facie case of infringement of the rights of the plaintiff.
The Court observed that, aside from the similarity between the character ‘Yakshini,’ and ‘Aghori,’ and the similarity in description of the scenario, there is nothing from where it can be inferred that there is a copyright violation of the “expression of idea” by defendant 1.
The Court after applying the Copyright Violation Tests laid down in R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, (1978) 4 SCC 118, said that the “an idea” of the plaintiff finds its roots in mythological stories not only within India but also beyond the Indian Boundaries. It is a character which has been existing since ages and finds mention in various scriptures as well.
The Court stated that, the similarity of name cannot be the sole criteria, especially because it was mythological character on which admittedly various works, movies, and books are already available. Prima facie, there is nothing to reflect that there is copyright violation of expression of idea as is asserted by the plaintiff.
The Court noted that, “Since the video series is slated to be released tonight i.e. after about a few hours, it cannot be said that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff especially when the advertising about the series commenced way back from 10.05.2024.”
The Court was of the view that it is clear that there cannot be an interim injunction at this stage.
The matter will next be listed on 10-07-2024.
[Pocket FM Pvt. Ltd. v. Novi Digital Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4382, decided on: 13-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Plaintiff: Darpan Wadhwa, Senior Advocate; Shantanu Sahay, Nishchal Anand and Varessha Irfan, Advocates
For Defendants: Sidharth Chopra, Sneha Jain, Snehima Jauhari and Vivek Kumar, Advocates for D1; Aditya Gupta, Advocates for D2.