TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Defendants served, injunction granted in copyright case involving Kannada film copying Korean film</h1> <h3>Kross Television India Pvt Ltd & Another Versus Vikhyat Chitra Production & Others</h3> The Bombay High Court ruled that the Defendants were adequately served with summons despite attempts to avoid service. The Court granted an injunction in ... Service of notice through WhatsApp - Suit seeking injunction in respect of the Kannada film Pushpaka Vimana, already been released - Held that:- Defendants who avoid and evade service by regular modes cannot be permitted to take advantage of that evasion - The Plaintiffs have given the Defendants every opportunity to appear - Where an alternative mode is used, however, and service is shown to be effected, and is acknowledged, then surely it cannot be suggested that the Defendants had ‘no notice - Vikhyat in particular does not seem to have cottoned on to the fact that when somebody calls him and he responds, details can be obtained from in-phone apps and services, and these are very hard to either obscure or disguise. There are email exchanges. There are message exchanges. None of these to my mind establishes that the Defendants are not adequately served. - The Defendants must now face the consequences. There is material prima facie to show that the Kannada film is a copy of the original Korean film. Paragraph 3.12 of the plaint has details. It quotes, inter alia, Vikhyat as admitting that he ‘adapted’ the screenplay of the Korean film for the Kannada film. There are fifteen separate instances of such admissions and corroborating material set out in that paragraph. Prima facie, Dr Saraf is correct in saying that the Kannada film is a colourable imitation of the Korean original. The Kannada film has been released and there is also a possibility that the Defendants have even made a telecast. Therefore there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why an ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause a(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) and prayer clause b(i),(ii) and (iii) should not be granted today. - Interim relief granted to petitioner. Issues: Service of summons through alternative modes, copyright infringement in film industry, granting of injunctionService of Summons:The Plaintiffs attempted to serve the Defendants through various modes like courier, hand delivery, email, and WhatsApp. Despite the Defendants' attempts to avoid service, the Court acknowledged that the purpose of service is to provide notice to the other party, and the mode of service is not crucial as long as it effectively informs the party. The Court emphasized that the Defendants had ample notice of the proceedings and cannot claim ignorance due to evasive tactics. The Court concluded that the Defendants were adequately served and must face the consequences.Copyright Infringement in Film Industry:The Plaintiffs sought an injunction against the Defendants regarding a Kannada film alleged to be a plagiarized copy of a Korean film. The Plaintiffs obtained rights for a Hindi remake of the Korean film and discovered the infringing Kannada film in February 2017. The Court found prima facie evidence indicating that the Kannada film was a colorable imitation of the original Korean film, with admissions from the Defendants supporting this claim. The Court agreed that further exhibition, distribution, and telecasts of the Kannada film should be prevented to avoid irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs.Granting of Injunction:Based on the evidence presented and the balance of convenience favoring the Plaintiffs, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendants from exhibiting, distributing, or telecasting the Kannada film on any medium. The Court also directed the Defendants to disclose various agreements and contacts related to the film. The matter was listed for a hearing and final disposal to proceed with the injunction on the specified date.This judgment from the Bombay High Court addresses the complexities of service of summons through alternative modes, copyright infringement issues in the film industry, and the legal considerations for granting injunctions to protect intellectual property rights.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
