The Court held that the 2011 agreement between the plaintiff and the film’s producer covered adaptations of the film in various manners, including dramas and musicals based on the content, story line and characters of the film.
Further, it observed that the rights in the agreement executed between Saregama and the producer in 1982, which was renewed in 2010, pertained to recordings of performances of musical nature and sound tracks.
Thereafter, the Court noted that the although the agreements of 2018 and 2019 between RG Studios, Gravity Zero Entertainment and the plaintiff referred to adaptation rights and right towards musical theatrical adaptation of the film, they were insignificant given that the plaintiff had obtained all rights in 2011.
Hence, it held that the plaintiff had made a prima facie case in its favour and unless temporary injunction was granted, it would continue to suffer loss due to infringement of its intellectual property rights.
Noting that the musical was scheduled to commence the next day, that heavy productions costs were incurred, and that artists were already engaged, the Court determined that an order restraining the event would not be appropriate. Equities could be balanced with appropriate directions, it said.
“But, a relevant aspect of the matter cannot be ignored, which is that the musical is to be staged in a theater in London from tomorrow i.e. 16.11.2022 for four days in a row, for which the theater is already booked and it is specifically stated on behalf of defendant No.1 that the production cost of about Rs.4.34 crores has already been incurred. More than that, there are artists, who upon being engaged, have practiced and perhaps reached the venue for staging of the musical and granting an order of restrainment even for staging the musical from 16.11.2022 for four days in a row in London may not be appropriate and the equities can be balanced by giving appropriate directions in that regard,” the Court stated.
Therefore, it temporarily restrained the defendant from infringing the plaintiff’s copyright and directed the musical to not be affected subject to Saregama depositing the entire collections from staging of the shows with the court within two weeks after the conclusion of the shows.
The Court said that the defendant could apply to it for release of specific amounts towards expenses incurred for hiring staff. It clarified that the payments that the defendant is liable to make to artists and other staff could not be withheld merely because the collections from the show were directed to be deposited with it
Source: Barandbench
