S.Harshavardhana vs Nikhil Siddharth And 5 Others

N.Mala, J

This application is filed for an interim injunction restraining the respondent from in any manner releasing the Tamil and Malayalam dubbed version of the film titled “Karthikeya 2” pending disposal of the suit.

2.I have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the application and also the documents filed in support thereof.

3.The suit is filed for a declaration that the feature film “Karthikeya 2” produced by the 2nd and 5th respondents/defendants is the replica of the applicant's script “Agniputra”. The petitioner is a Film Director in the Indian Film industry. He was an Assistant Director with the renowned Film maker, Mr.A.R.Murugados. The applicant is a Story writer and Director of the Film “China” produced by M/s.Seven Screen Studio. According to the applicant, he is the author of the script titled “Agniputra”, which was originally titled as “Sindbad” and later as “Super 60” and finally titled “Agniputra”, the said script was registered with the South Indian Film Writers’ Association on 06.10.2021. According to the applicant the script was written in 2017 and he had worked tirelessly on the said script for a period of three years with an aspiration to become a successful Director in the Film industry.

4.Whileso, the applicant met one Mr.Mahesh, who introduced him to Mr.Nikhil Siddharth, first respondent/first defendant in the suit. The applicant approached the firs respondent/first defendant, narrated the story and on his request, forwarded the copy of the pdf file of the script to the Manager of the first respondent/first defendant. The applicant further stated that the first respondent/first defendant agreed to act as a protagonist and further requested the applicant to find a production house. The applicant therefore approached one Jayakumar, who agreed to produce the movie. The first respondent/first defendant agreed to act in the applicant’s movie, but requested him to wait for him to finish the movie “Karthikeya 2” of which the shooting had begun. After the completion of the movie, the trailer and promos of the movie “Karthikeya 2” were released on 28.06.2022, on seeing which a suspicion arouse in the applicant’s mind about his script being copied. On enquiry with the first respondent/first defendant the applicant was assured that there was no similarity with the applicant's script and therefore believing the words of the first respondent/first defendant the applicant did not make a big issue out of the trailers and promos. The movie “Karthikeya 2” was subsequently released on 13.08.2022 and had earned huge profit in the first few weeks of release. The applicant was shocked when he saw the movie as the theme, idea and concept were strikingly similar to the applicant’s script.

5.According to the applicant the movie “Karthikeya 2” is the replica of the applicant’s script and there was an infringement in the copy right of his script. The applicant therefore made a complaint to the South Indian Film Writers’ Association and the said Association vide letter dated 30.08.2022 had expressed its difficulty in providing a report on or before 11.09.2022 because of the on-going election works in the Association. The applicant was therefore constrained to file the suit for the reliefs claimed therein and also filed the above said application for interim injunction.

6.The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the averments in the affidavit particularly in paragraph No.16 where the tabulation of similarities in the story line of the applicant's script and the movie “Karthikeya 2” are given would clearly establish that there is an infringement of the applicant’s copy right. He further submitted that in the reply given to the complaint filed by the applicant to the South Indian Film Writers’ Association, the said Association stated that there were striking similarities in the script of the applicant and the feature film “Karthikeya 2” and hence according to the counsel, his contentions are supported by the said letter. The learned counsel therefore submitted that this is a fit case for grant of interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from releasing the Tamil and Malayalam dubbed version of film “Karthikeya 2”.

7.I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have perused the affidavit and the connected documents.

8.The learned counsel for the applicant fairly conceded that the movie was released on 13.08.2022 and the OTT release was also made on 05.10.2022. It is therefore to be seen whether the applicant has made out a case for grant of interim injunction with respect to the release of the Tamil and Malayalam dubbed versions of the movie. It is seen that the applicant registered the script “Agniputra” with the South Indian Film Writer’s Association on 06.10.2021, but what is shared by him with the first respondent/first defendant is the script of “Super 60”. The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the script was originally titled as “Sindbad” and later it was changed to “Super 60” and thereafter at the time of registration the title was changed to “Agniputra”. He further submits that though the title is different, the content and the story is one and the same. At this stage, the detailed comparison of the applicant’s script with the movie cannot be undertaken and the same would be the subject matter of the trial.

9.It is now well settled that it is not a mere copying of an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary fact that would cause an infringement of copy right, what is essential for infringement of a copy right is the form, manner and arrangement and expression of the idea by title holder of the copy-righted work. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a single idea can be developed in different forms on the basis of a common source and under such circumstances similarities are bound to occur. To constitute an infringement of a copy right the similarities should be on the fundamental or substantial aspect and on the mode of expression adopted in the copy right. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.G.Anand Vs. Delux Films and Others reported in 1978 (4) SCC 118 has elucidated certain proposition on the issue of infringement of copy right. Whether there are similarities or not and if so whether such similarities are substantial or material part of the protected work can be established only at the trial. It is further relevant to note here that even the expert body i.e. the South Indian Film Writers’ Association to which the applicant made a complaint, left the issue open for further consideration vide letter dated 30.08.2022. The applicant has not explained as to why he did not pursue the complaint before the South Indian Film Writers’ Association, which is an expert body. The learned counsel for the applicant further admitted that the movie has also been released in OTT, now. I am of the view that the applicant in the event of success in the suit can be suitably compensated and he has also prayed for the relief of damage and compensation in the suit. Hence I find that no irreparable injury would be caused to the applicant.

10.In the light of the said facts, I do not find any reason to grant an order of ex-parte interim injunction for restraining the release of the Tamil and Malayalam dubbed version of the film “Karthikeya 2”. I therefore order notice in the Injunction Application and permit private notice returnable in two weeks. Post the matter on 26.10.2022.

11.It is made clear that the observations made herein would not have any bearing on the application to be decided on contest and on merits.