Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has overturned a District Court's order that temporarily restrained the OTT and global release of the Malayalam film Porattu Nadakam, resolving that the plaintiffs’ claims of copyright infringement lacked sufficient legal grounding.

The court, presided over by Justice Syam Kumar V.M., issued the ruling, modifying earlier restrictions that permitted only theatrical screenings of the movie. The court held that the balance of convenience and potential losses favoured the defendants, while questioning the validity of the evidence relied upon by the trial court.

The film courted controversy following allegations of copyright infringement by the plaintiffs, a production company and an author, which claimed ownership of its intellectual property. The plaintiffs alleged that the movie script titled Subham, authored by the second plaintiff in 2018 was exclusively assigned to the first plaintiff through an agreement. The script, which the plaintiffs claimed significantly mirrored Subham, was allegedly misappropriated by the defendants (Emirates Productions and others), to produce Porattu Nadakam. Following the initial accusations, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to compare the scripts. The Commissioner found three commonalities in plot elements, which became the crux of the plaintiffs' argument for an interim injunction.

Initially barred from release, the defendants secured permission for a theatrical screening after a deposit of ₹7.5 lakh monetary security. Subsequently, the plaintiffs sought to halt the OTT and global release of the film. In October 2024, the Additional District Court imposed restrictions on the sale or transfer of the film’s rights, including to OTT platforms and TV channels, until the dispute was resolved.

The defendants contended that Porattu Nadakam was independently conceived, inspired by a real-life incident from 2019. The defendants questioned the reliability of comparing scripts through an Advocate Commissioner, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films, arguing that the District Court’s reliance on superficial similarities found by the Advocate Commissioner and unsupported conclusions was misplaced.

Agreeing with the contentions of the defendants, the court observed that the District Court's decision to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to watch the movie and compare the scripts for reporting purposes was erroneous and not in line with the legal principles established by the Supreme Court in R.G. Anand case.

The court found that the trial court erred by relying heavily on the Advocate Commissioner’s findings without conducting an in-depth legal analysis as required under copyright law. The court noted: “a cursory analysis or comparison of the scripts by an Advocate Commissioner cannot be the basis for assessing or identifying copyright infringement. An endeavour to ascertain whether a viewer after seeing the work would clearly be drawn to conclude or get an unmistakable impression that one work is a copy of the other is to be carried out. The said task cannot be relegated to an Advocate Commissioner.”

The court also found no evidence to demonstrate that defendants copied the “fundamental, essential, and distinctive” elements of Subham’s script. “Based on the sketchy and perfunctory comparison carried out between the scripts and the storylines, without complying with the mandates laid down in R.G.Anand (supra), the three common factors found in the story and option 2 of the synopsis of the script, cannot by itself be termed to be substantial nor as material sufficient enough to conclude that there has been an infringement of copyright,” the court stated.

The court further said that the plaintiffs had already accepted monetary compensation through the consensual order, indicating they prioritised financial remedies over injunctions.

“As regards the balance of convenience is concerned, it is clear that the same would tilt in favour of defendants 1 to 3 as they had already been permitted to do the theatrical releases. They would invariably stand to suffer irreparably if the OTT and similar releases are not carried out simultaneously with the theatrical release,” the court further acknowledged.

Noting that “even a prima facie case has not been reliably made out by the plaintiffs,” the court concluded that the injunction imposed by the District Court was unjustified, allowing Porattu Nadakam to release on OTT and other platforms globally.

 

Cause Title: M/S Emirates Production and Others v Akhil Dev S. And Another [FAO NO.156 OF 2024]

Appearances: For the Defendants- Advocate Mohammed Siyad M.F.; For the Plaintiffs - Advocates Anil Prasad, K.R.Monisha, Krishna Prasad S., Sabu P. Joseph, C.N.Sreekumar, Manju Paul, Beyon T. Varghese, K.S.Muhammed Shefin, Sindhu S Kamath,  Swapna S.K, Rohini Nair, Suraj Kumar D., Sunilkumar K.K., A.Karthika Sivan