In a recent ruling by the Delhi High Court, the Yakshini Copyright Dispute case has been addressed with clarity. The court’s decision sheds light on the intricate legal issues surrounding the rights to ‘Yakshini’ between the involved parties. Stay tuned to know more about this landmark judgement!
Facts
- The plaintiff has sought ad interim temporary injunction against Original Names, their Directors, Partners, etc.
- Restraining them from publishing, selling, marketing, etc. the video adaptation of ‘Yakshini’ on their website or any other media platforms.
- The injunction is to prevent any unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s work ‘Yakshini’.
Arguments
- The plaintiff argued that the defendant attempted to misrepresent any connection or affiliation to the plaintiff’s mark ‘Yakshini’.
- The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was trying to misappropriate and freeride on the goodwill and reputation built around ‘Yakshini’.
- The plaintiff sought interim protection through an injunction due to the defendant’s actions.
- It was stated that the plaintiff did not have a prima facie case for seeking a pre-publication prohibitory injunction.
- The plaintiff had shared proprietary information with the defendant and its parent company, Star India Private Limited.
- The plaintiff had filed a trademark application for ‘Yakshini’ to protect its rights.
- The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s work was not in violation of copyright as ‘Yakshini’ is an old mythological character with abundant literature available.
- The plaintiff pointed out that ‘Yakshini’ character is present in various cultures including Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, South India, and beyond the Indian Sub-continent.
- It was mentioned that the plaintiff had signed a ‘Release Form’ relinquishing any proprietary rights to the works shared during negotiations with the defendant.
- The plaintiff was accused of not approaching the court with clean hands in the case.
- The plaintiff claimed a strong prima facie case and exclusive copyrights to ‘Yakshini’.
- The plaintiff argued that imitating its work would cause irreparable loss which cannot be compensated monetarily.
- The plaintiff cited an article discussing the ‘Yakshini’ character as existing in myths and popular culture.
- The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s work showed similarities to its own ‘Yakshini’ audio series in terms of theme and storyline.
- General public members commented that the defendant’s work was an adaptation of the plaintiff’s ‘Yakshini’.
- There were past engagements between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding possible business engagements.
- The defendant opposed the ex parte injunction to stay the release of the plaintiff’s video series.
- The defendant had publicized the upcoming release of its series since May 10, 2024, while the plaintiff waited until the last moment to take action.
- The expression of idea, not just the idea itself, has been copied in violation of the plaintiff’s rights.
- Unique characters like Aghori and the Blue Sun have been copied by the respondent.
- Granting injunction will not cause monetary loss to the respondent as the series is intended for OTT platforms, not cinemas.
- Cases cited in support of the plaintiff’s arguments include Shamoil Ahmad Khan vs Falguni Shah, Macmillan and Company Limited vs K. and J. Cooper, Anil Gupta vs Kunal Dasgupta, and N. T. Raghunathan vs All India Reported Ltd Bombay.
Analysis
- The plaintiff operates an online platform called ‘Pocket FM’ offering audio series and audiobooks across various genres.
- They have a character named ‘Yakshini’ with more than 225 hours of run time and claim to be the exclusive owner with licensing rights.
- The plaintiff signed agreements with creators and owns the rights to the ‘Yakshini’ work, adapted as an audio series.
- Despite similarities in the character and scenario descriptions in the defendant’s trailer video, no concrete evidence of copyright infringement is established.
- The court refers to the R.G. Anand vs Delux Films case for tests on copyright violation, which focus on expression of ideas and substantial aspects of mode of expression.
- Although there were agreements between the parties, the Release Form does not suggest an absolute disclaimer regarding the entire project.
- Considering the imminent release of the video series and lack of concrete facts showing copyright violation, no ad-interim injunction is granted in favor of the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff’s business operations, prior knowledge about the series, and mythological character roots are taken into account in the analysis.
- The plaintiff claims unauthorized adaptation of their ‘Yakshini’ series by the defendant, but no irreparable loss is deemed to occur from the series release.
- The court emphasizes that the similarity of name alone cannot be the sole criterion for establishing copyright infringement.
- The PRE_RELIED section of the judgement discusses the previous judgements and cases cited by the parties in the present case.
- It includes references to India Private Limited and Others, HT Media Ltd. vs UTV News Ltd. & Anr., and Vinay Vats vs. Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
- These references were made in the context of arguments presented by the parties regarding similar cases and legal precedents.
- The court considered the arguments and citations provided by both the Plaintiff and Defendants in the case.
- The PRE_RELIED section serves as a foundation for the subsequent deliberation and decision-making by the court.
- There is no evidence of copyright violation of the plaintiff’s idea by the defendant.
- Copyright law does not protect ideas, only the expression of ideas.
- Judgments like Shamoil Ahmad Khan, Macmillan and Company Limited, Anil Gupta, and N. T. Raghunathan also support the idea that copyrights cannot be claimed over ideas.
- Interim injunction cannot be granted in this case.
- The plaintiff did not give an undertaking to refrain from taking action on the work submitted with the defendant in the future.
Case Title: POCKET FM PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. NOVI DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. (2024:DHC:4752)
Case Number: I.A.-31731/2024
