Copyright infringement in the matter of Shivani Tibrewala v/s Rajat Mukherjee

PARTIES

Plaintiff: Shivani Tibrewala

Defendant: Rajat Mukherjee, Welcome Friends Productions LLP, Rohit Sehtia, Amrit Sethia, S.O.I.E. Ginza Industries Ltd.

BRIEF FACTS

The Plaintiff has filed the present infringement of copyright suit against the Defendant alleging that the Defendant’s cinematographic work named “Umeed” is a substantial reproduction or altered copy of the Plaintiff’s script of the play “The Laboratory”.

The theme of both the work in question is of unethical drug testing and the malpractices followed by large pharmaceutical corporations, where harmful drugs are tested on poor and needy individuals without obtaining their informed consent.

The Plaintiff’s work depicts a story of a young girl (named Joy) aspiring to be a doctor, having a drunkard father and a troubled background. Due to strained financial conditions of the family the protagonist’s mother approaches her brother in law, who is a CEO of a leading pharmaceutical company for help. He subjects her to clinical trials for money resulting her death. Joy subsequently comes to know about the illegal clinical trial her mother was subjected to and therefore sues her uncle and finally overcoming all the hurdles coming by wins the case.

The Defendant’s work depicts story of two sisters coming to the city of dreams (Bombay). The protagonist becomes a beauty contest winner and consequently makes a number of social appearances, by way of which she provides medical relief to the people. There are other supporting characters in the story like Miss Eliza, Dr Bali, Dr Nisha etc, whose persistent scrutiny of malpractices of the pharmaceutical companies exposes the practice of these companies using the protagonist as a medium to experiment and conduct illegal clinical trials on poor. On coming to know the true agenda, the protagonist along with her sister and another character decides to battle against the company.

ISSUE

Whether the work of Defendant amount to infringement of copyright of Plaintiff’s work.

APPLICABLE RULE

Section 51 of Copyrights Act

ARGUMENTS

The Plaintiff advanced the following arguments:

  • Firstly, that the story depicted in the Defendant’s work resembles substantially with the Plaintiff’s work.
  • That the Plaintiff need not prove that the entire work of the Plaintiff is copied but it is sufficient if it is proved that there is substantial copying.
  • That the burden of proof is on the Defendant to show the common sources which is alleged to be available in the market and that the Defendant in fact utilised the information in these sources.
  • That the work of the Plaintiff is original and therefore the Plaintiff is entitled for protection of its copyright.

The Defendant advanced the following arguments:

  • That though both the stories are based on the common theme, the treatment of the sensitive issue addressed, is very different.
  • That there is a stark difference in both the stories in question: The Defendant’s work does not involve an element of revenge on the part of the protagonist; and listed other crucial points of differences.
  • That the similarities drawn by the Plaintiff are non-existent and, in any case, do not constitute an infringement of copyright as the same relate to scenes commonly occurring in films especially of the nature authored by the Defendants.
  • That there is no proof for the fact that the Defendants had access to the Plaintiff’s works.
  • That the main point of consideration is the treatment of the subject or theme addressed in the work and the manner in which the idea is expressed, not the idea itself.

DECISION

The court, relying on the principles laid down in R.G. Anand v/s. Delux Films, held that the work of the Defendant does not amount to infringement of copyright of Plaintiff. The decision was based on the following reasons:

  • Firstly, prima facie there is no substantial similarities in the protectable elements of the works in question.
  • Secondly, that there cannot be a monopoly on a theme of illegal drug trial or big pharmaceutical companies indulging in it.
  • That the Defendants have prima facie proved that their work is original and has been independently arrived at.

Author:   Harleen Sethi, LLM (Intellectual Property and Technology Laws) Student at National University of Singapore, an intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at aishani@khuranaandkhurana.com.

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010