<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (4) TMI 439 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=226209</link>
    <description>Copyright in a cinematograph film is separate from copyright in the underlying literary work, and a claim to remake rights may fail if no valid written assignment of the screenplay, story or dialogue rights is shown. Where a bona fide and timely dispute over title to those underlying rights is raised, the assignee may question further payment until the assignor produces supporting assignment documents. On the facts described, the assignee&#039;s withholding of the third instalment was treated as justified, and the interim injunction restraining the remake was vacated because the balance of convenience favoured continuation, with monetary compensation considered adequate if the assignor ultimately succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:00:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195592" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 439 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=226209</link>
      <description>Copyright in a cinematograph film is separate from copyright in the underlying literary work, and a claim to remake rights may fail if no valid written assignment of the screenplay, story or dialogue rights is shown. Where a bona fide and timely dispute over title to those underlying rights is raised, the assignee may question further payment until the assignor produces supporting assignment documents. On the facts described, the assignee&#039;s withholding of the third instalment was treated as justified, and the interim injunction restraining the remake was vacated because the balance of convenience favoured continuation, with monetary compensation considered adequate if the assignor ultimately succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=226209</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>