The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to stop the OTT release of the film ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ in a copyright dispute over the iconic song “Tirchi Topiwale” from the 1989 film ‘Tridev,’ holding that the plaintiff’s conduct and alleged suppression of material facts weakened its claim for interim relief.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing a suit filed by Trimurti Films Private Limited against B62 Studios Private Limited, Jio Studios, and Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited, which owns T-Series.
What the dispute is about: Trimurti claimed that T-Series had only received limited rights under a 1988 agreement to manufacture and sell music records of songs from ‘Tridev’, and did not receive the right to reuse or remix “Tirchi Topiwale” in another film. The dispute arose after a remixed version of the song, titled “Rang De Lal (Oye Oye)”, was used in ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’.
The production house argued that it remained the owner of the song and underlying works and that the defendants needed fresh permission before using the track in a new film. It also sought an injunction restraining the OTT release of ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge,’ removal of the song from all platforms, disclosure of revenues earned from the song, and royalty payments.
Trimurti’s arguments: Trimurti told the court that the 1988 agreement only allowed T-Series to exploit the music through records, cassettes, and broadcasting. It argued that synchronisation rights for use in another cinematographic film were never assigned.
The plaintiff further argued that every fresh exploitation of the song created a new cause of action and that earlier inaction did not extinguish its copyright claims.
Relying on Section 21 of the Copyright Act, 1957, Trimurti argued that nobody had formally relinquished the rights because nobody had filed any notice before the Registrar of Copyrights.
It also cited a separate 1989 agreement concerning video rights of ‘Tridev,’ arguing that if T-Series already owned all rights under the 1988 agreement, “there would have been no need for a separate 1989 video-rights agreement.”
T-Series cites earlier films and prior conduct: T-Series, however, argued that the suit was hit by “acquiescence, concealment, suppression, and willful non-disclosure of relevant facts.” It told the court that Trimurti had earlier objected to the use of songs from ‘Tridev’ in the film ‘Azhar’ through a legal notice in 2016, but never pursued the matter further after T-Series replied, asserting its rights under the 1988 agreement.
Trimurti did not legally challenge the use of another ‘Tridev’ song in ‘K.G.F: Chapter 1‘, T-Series told the court.
T-Series argued that the plaintiff had long accepted exploitation of the songs and that the agreement granted broad rights over the literary, musical, and dramatic works embodied in ‘Tridev.’
Jio Studios’ stand: Jio Studios separately argued that stopping the OTT release while allowing the film to continue running in theatres created an “incongruity.” It argued that if the alleged infringement was already public in cinema halls, restraining OTT streaming made little legal sense.
The studio also argued that damages can easily be ascertained during trial, and they could compensate Trimurti for any loss; therefore, the court should not grant an injunction.
Court’s analysis: In its analysis, the court focused heavily on suppression of material facts, contradictory pleadings and equitable conduct. Justice Gedela reiterated that a party seeking an interim injunction must “come with clean hands” and satisfy the “triple test” of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.
The court found that Trimurti’s claim that its promoter, Rajiv Rai, had remained disconnected from Indian affairs after leaving the country in 1997 was inconsistent with records showing the company actively pursued multiple copyright and tax litigations between 2016 and 2020.
The order also noted contradictory explanations regarding earlier notices, legal representation, and knowledge of previous alleged infringements.
The court observed that the plaintiff’s prior silence over earlier films, coupled with incomplete disclosures and shifting stands, seriously weakened its request for discretionary interim relief.
Why the order matters: The dispute is significant for the film, music, and OTT industries because it raises broader questions around remix rights, synchronisation rights, exploitation of old music catalogs, and interpretation of pre-digital-era assignment agreements signed before streaming and OTT platforms existed.
The dispute comes amid a broader wave of litigation over old Bollywood catalogs and legacy rights agreements signed before the streaming era. Just days earlier, a Bihar court granted interim protection to Puja Entertainment in a separate dispute against Tips Music Limited over alleged unauthorized exploitation of films, music catalogs, and related intellectual property linked to movies such as ‘Coolie No. 1,’ ‘Hero No. 1,’ and ‘Biwi No. 1.’ The Bihar court directed parties to maintain the status quo over the disputed works, observing that the absence of immediate relief could cause “serious and irreparable injury” to the plaintiff’s rights.
Read more:
For You
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。