Madras High Court
M/S.Five Star Films Pvt. Ltd vs Sri Thenandal Films on 8 June, 2022
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judgment reserved on 24.03.2022
Judgment pronounced on 08.06.2022
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Civil Suit(Comm.Suit) No.116 of 2019
and
Original Application No.127 of 2019
M/s.Five Star Films Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Director Mrs.K.Kalaiselvi,
No.3/66, 7th Street,
Sree Sayee Nagar, Virugambakkam,
Chennai – 600 092. ... Plaintiff
vs.
1.Sri Thenandal Films,
Rep. by its Proprietor
Mr.Ramasamy Narayanan alias Murali,
No.8, 80 Feet Road, Thevar Thottam,
Saligramam, Chennai – 600 093.
2.Mr.Atlee alias Arunkumar,
No.12-B, Unique Apartments,
Nehru Nagar 1st Street,
Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 26
C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019
3.M/s.Sathya Movies
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Mrs.V.Rajammal,
No.11, Sadhasivam Street,
Gopalapuram, Chennai – 600 086. ... Defendants
The suit is filed under Order VI Rule 1 of High Court O.S. Rules
r/w Order VII Rule 1 of CPC and Section 55 of the Copyright Act,1957 to
direct the Defendants 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,00,000/- (Rupees
Four Crores only) towards damages for the illegal adaptation and
infringement of copy rights of the story of the Plaintiff's movie ''Moondru
Mugam'' for making their movie ''Mersal'' directed by the second
Defendant, produced by the first Defendant, without obtaining permission
or assignment from the Plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining the
Defendants or their men or agents or servants from further exhibiting,
telecasting and releasing in any language the Digital, Satellite and the
remake rights of the Tamil Cinematograph Film, ''Mersal'' Directed by the
second Defendant, produced by the first Defendant, without obtaining
permission or assignment from the Plaintiff and for the costs of the suit.
For Plaintiff : Mr.R.Sathish Kumar and
Mr.K.Balaji
For Defendants : M/s.S.Karthikei Balan for D-1
Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam
for M/s.BFS Legal for D-2
Ms.Durga Bhatt for D-3
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2 of 26
C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The suit was filed for injunctive relief and damages for the alleged infringement of the copyright in the movie ''Moondru Mugam'' by exhibiting the movie ''Mersal''. The Plaintiff is a private limited company engaged, inter alia, in the production and distribution of Tamil movies. In the year 1982, the third Defendant produced the Tamil feature film titled ''Moondru Mugam''. The said movie was a box office success. A proprietary concern named M/s Group Company, represented by its Proprietor, Mr.S.Kathiresan, entered into an Assignment Agreement on 02.08.2007(the Original Assignment Agreement) with the third Defendant for assignment of the copyright in the story of the movie ''Moondru Mugam'' to Mr.S.Kathiresan for purposes of remaking the movie in the Tamil language. The term of assignment was 99 years from the date of the said Agreement. Subsequent thereto, the Plaintiff obtained a no objection letter on 22.03.2014 from the third Defendant for dubbing the remade version of the movie ''Moondru Mugam'' in the Telugu language. According to the Plaintiff, Mr.S.Kathiresan transferred the assignment to the Plaintiff on 05.09.2015 because the cost of production was high and it was considered easier for a limited company to raise finances.
_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3 of 26 C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019
2. A Tamil movie titled as ''Mersal'' was released on 18.10.2017. The said movie was produced by the first Defendant and directed by the second Defendant. Upon viewing the movie, the Plaintiff asserts that the movie is a copy of ''Moondru Mugam''. In order to establish that ''Mersal'' is a copy of ''Moondru Mugam'', the Plaintiff has set out, in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint, the story of the two movies and a table pointing out the alleged substantial similarities between the movies. The Plaintiff states that the following substantial similarities are conspicuous on viewing the two movies. There is an honest father who has two sons. In his dying moments, the father vows to exact revenge on the person responsible for his murder by being reborn. The sons are raised by foster parents after the death of their mother. The brutal murder of the father is disclosed midway through the movie. Eventually, the villain, who brutally murdered the father, is killed by the sons.
3. Immediately upon noticing the infringement, the Plaintiff states that the first Defendant was approached and that the first Defendant assured the Plaintiff that monetary compensation would be paid. Since this assurance was not adhered to, the Plaintiff submitted a complaint to the _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4 of 26 C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019 Tamil Film Producers' Council (the Film Producers' Council) on 25.10.2017. Upon receipt thereof, the President of the Film Producers' Council called for an explanation from the first and second Defendants. The Plaintiff states that the Film Producers' Council passed a resolution on 31.10.2017 against the second Defendant and demanded that he pays 30% of the salary received from the first Defendant to the Plaintiff. Upon receipt of the communication from the Film Producers' Council, the Plaintiff states that the second Defendant provided an evasive reply. In spite of endeavouring to resolve the dispute amicably by using the good offices of the Film Producers' Council, the Plaintiff states that the Defendants did not co-operate in resolving the dispute. According to the Plaintiff, a minimum of Rs.20 crore would be earned as profit if ''Moondru Mugam'' is remade in Tamil and Telugu by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff asserts that the project was promoted over about one year. Since the second Defendant is the Director and the first Defendant is the producer, the Plaintiff alleges that both of them are liable for infringement of the Plaintiff's copyright. The Plaintiff also asserts that the second Defendant admitted in media interactions that he copied the movie ''Moondru Mugam''. The suit was filed in the above facts and circumstances.
_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5 of 26 C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019
4. In his written statement, the first Defendant denies the allegation that ''Mersal'' is a copy of ''Moondru Mugam''. The first Defendant states that ''Mersal'' is different from ''Moondru Mugam'' in relation to story, plot, theme, artists, etc. The first Defendant points out that even the original producer of the movie ''Moondru Mugam'', namely, the third Defendant herein, did not oppose the movie ''Mersal''. According to the first Defendant, the movie is based on the original literary work of the second Defendant. The first Defendant also points out that the Plaintiff claims a sum of Rs.4,00,00,000/- as damages in the suit although not more than Rs.4,00,000/- was allegedly paid as consideration under the Original Assignment Agreement on which the Plaintiff relies.
5. The Second Defendant states, in his written statement, that he is a well known Director and story writer in the Tamil film industry. He entered into an agreement with the first Defendant for making the movie ''Mersal''. According to the second Defendant, Mr.S.Kathiresan, who is a producer and the Honorary Secretary of the Film Producers' Council, purchased the remake rights of an old Tamil movie titled ''Moondru Mugam'' and made slanderous claims that ''Mersal'' is similar to ''Moondru Mugam''. _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6 of 26 C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019 The second Defendant states that the Plaintiff abused his influence with the Film Producers' Council to lodge a complaint against the second Defendant on the basis of false allegations. In fact, the second Defendant states that he was shocked to receive a letter dated 01.11.2017 from the Film Producers' Council alleging that ''Mersal'' is similar to ''Moondru Mugam'' and calling upon him to pay Mr.S.Kathiresan 30% of the salary received by him for making the movie ''Mersal''. The second Defendant further states that he was not provided prior notice of the meeting and that he was not given an opportunity to respond to the complaint or allegations. The second Defendant also states that there is no basis to the allegation that the movie ''Mersal'' is based on ''Moondru Mugam''. The second Defendant points out the differences between the two movies by setting out the story line and the essential features of the two movies in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the written statement. According to the second Defendant, the focus of ''Mersal'' is the exploitation of the common man by corrupt doctors, whereas, in sharp contrast, the focus of ''Moondru Mugam'' is the personal agenda of revenge against the villain. In ''Mersal'' the villain and the heroes cross paths by accident and not by design. The differences in the principal characters were adverted to by the second Defendant by pointing out that the principal _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.7 of 26 C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019 characters in ''Moondru Mugam'' are a police officer, business man and rogue, whereas, in ''Mersal'' the principal characters are a farmer, doctor and magician. Thus, it is stated that ''Mersal'' cannot be characterized as a copy of ''Moondru Mugam''.
6. The third Defendant asserts ownership of the copyright in the movie ''Moondru Mugam''. The third Defendant points out that the remake rights of the movie were assigned on 02.08.2007 to Mr.S.Kathiresan, Sole Proprietor of M/s.Group Company. The third Defendant also states that, by letter dated 22.03.2014, the third Defendant conveyed their no objection to Mr.S.Kathiresan to remake or dub the Tamil remake in Telugu. According to the third Defendant, Mr.S.Kathiresan did not inform the third Defendant that he had, in turn, assigned the remake rights to the Plaintiff. The third Defendant concurs with the allegation of the Plaintiff that the movie ''Mersal'' is a copy of the movie ''Moondru Mugam''.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, by order dated 24.09.2021, the Court framed the following issues:
_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.8 of 26 C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019
(i) Whether the Plaintiff is the holder of remake right of the Tamil movie ''Moondru Mugam'' from the third Defendant?
(ii) Whether the movie ''Mersal'' is an infringement of the Plaintiff's remake right for the movie ''Moondru Mugam''?
(iii) Whether the Assignment Deed dated 02.08.2007 in favour of the Plaintiff by the third Defendant is valid and whether it is in respect of absolute and exclusive copyright of remaking the Tamil Film ''Moondru Mugam''?
(iv) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for cost and damages as prayed?
(v) To what other relief?
8. By order dated 09.11.2021, this Court concluded that oral evidence is not required in the suit. Therefore, the matter was posted before the learned IV Additional Master on 18.11.2021 for marking documents. On 22.11.2021, Exs.P1 to P7 and Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 were marked. Subsequently, on 06.12.2021, Exs.P8 to P16 and Ex.D3 were marked. _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.9 of 26 C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019 Thus, 16 documents were exhibited by the Plaintiff as Exs.P1 to P16 and three documents by the Defendants as Exs.D1 to D3. Oral arguments were advanced by Mr. R. Sathish Kumar, learned counsel for the Plaintiff; Mr. P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned counsel for the second Defendant; Mr. Karthikei Balan, learned counsel for the first Defendant; and by Ms. Durga Bhatt, learned counsel for the third Defendant.
Issue Nos.1 and 3:
9. Since Issue Nos.1 and 3 are closely inter-related, they are considered jointly. The Plaintiff traces title through the Original Assignment Agreement, which was exhibited as Ex.P1. Issue No.3 refers to the Assignment Agreement dated 02.08.2007 which is in favour of Mr.S.Kathiresan and not the Plaintiff. Therefore, issue No.3 should be re- cast as under:
(iii) Whether the Plaintiff acquired the exclusive right to re-make the Tamil film ''Moondru Mugam'' under Assignment Agreement dated 02.08.2007 and the subsequent Assignment Agreement dated 05.09.2015?
_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.10 of 26 C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019
10. The Original Assignment Agreement is between the third Defendant and Mr.S.Kathiresan, Proprietor, M/s.Group Company. Clause - 1 of the said Agreement provides for the grant of exclusive, absolute and complete copyright in the Tamil story titled as ''Moondru Mugam'' to the assignee for the purpose of producing it in the Tamil language only as a remake. The said Clause also indicates that the term of the Agreement is 99 years. Clause - 2 specifies the consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-. Clause - 3 is significant and is set out below:
''The assignor shall not re-assign the said rights to anyone''.
As per Clause – 6, one copy of the script of the Tamil film titled as ''Moondru Mugam'' was handed over to the assignee. However, the Plaintiff has not filed the said script as an exhibit in this proceeding.
11. Subsequently, by an Assignment Agreement dated 05.09.2015 (Ex.P3 - the Subsequent Assignment Agreement), Mr.S.Kathiresan, Proprietor, M/s.Group Company, assigned the rights in relation to the remake of the Tamil movie ''Moondru Mugam'' to the Plaintiff herein. The Subsequent Assignment Agreement has been signed by Mr.S.Kathiresan as _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.11 of 26 C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019 Proprietor of M/s.Group Company and by Mrs.K.Kalai Selvi as Director for and on behalf of the Plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that the third Defendant is not a party to the Subsequent Assignment Agreement. In this regard, it should be noticed that the third Defendant, in the written statement, at paragraph 6, has stated that the execution of the Subsequent Assignment Agreement was not brought to her notice by Mr.S.Kathiresan. More importantly, Clause - 3 of the Original Assignment Agreement contains a clause prohibiting the re-assignment of rights assigned under the said Original Assignment Agreement. This entails scrutiny of whether the third Defendant challenged the Subsequent Assignment Agreement in the pleadings or otherwise. At paragraph 7 of the written statement, the third Defendant states that the ''Plaintiff holds only the remaking rights of the said movie in Tamil language and remaking or dubbing the re-made new Tamil version in Telugu language''. Thus, notwithstanding the prohibition in Clause - 3 of the Original Assignment Agreement, it appears that the third Defendant has acquiesced in the assignment by Mr.S.Kathiresan to and in favour of the Plaintiff. Thus, Issue Nos.1 and 3 are decided in favour of the Plaintiff. Issue Nos.2, 4 and 5 remain to be considered.
_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.12 of 26 C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019 Issue Nos.2,4 and 5:
12. The Plaintiff contended that the movie ''Mersal'' is at least a substantial copy of the movie ''Moondru Mugam''. While the Plaintiff concedes that there can be no copyright in an idea, concept or theme, the Plaintiff asserts that the expression of the idea in the form of scenes, sequences, narration and the like are legitimately the subject matter of copyright. The Plaintiff points out that both in ''Moondru Mugam'' and ''Mersal'', there are six common central characters. These characters are the father, two sons, main villain, the accessory or side kick to the main villain and a journalist heroine. The Plaintiff refers to the correspondence between the Tamil Film Producers' Council and the second Defendant(Exs.P6 to P15) and points out that the Film Producers' Council, upon due deliberation, concluded that the movie ''Mersal'' is a copy of the movie ''Moondru Mugam''. The Plaintiff also adverted to Ex.D1, which is a comparison between ''Mersal'' and ''Moondru Mugam''. Although the Defendants relied on this document to project the case that ''Mersal'' delivers a social message, the Plaintiff contended that both movies are focussed on personal revenge for the death of the father.
_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.13 of 26 C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019
13. According to the Plaintiff, the central events in the two movies are substantially similar and that the differences are not material. By referring to paragraph 5 of the plaint, the Plaintiff highlighted the similarities between the two movies and contended that such similarities cannot be a matter of mere coincidence. In support of these contentions, the Plaintiff referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.G.Anand v. M/s.Delux Films and Ors. (1978) 4 SCC 118 (R.G.Anand). In addition, the Plaintiff relied upon the judgment of this Court in C.Cunniah and Company by Partner, M.Anjaneyulu, v. Balraj and Company by Partner, S.Rajaratnam Chettiar, AIR 1961 MAD 111 (Cunniah), to contend that an exact reproduction is not necessary to support the inference that the defendant's work was taken from the plaintiff's work. The Plaintiff also pointed out that this Court held in Cunniah that a few changes would be introduced when copying is done intelligently, and that such changes do not absolve the infringer from liability. The Plaintiff also pointed out that this Court relied upon the judgment in Corelli v. Gray, 1913-29 T, L.B.570, where the Court referred to four hypotheses, under which similarities between two works could exist, namely, (1) mere chance; (2) both works being taken from a common source; (3) the plaintiff's work _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.14 of 26 C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019 being taken from the defendant's; and (4) the defendant's work being taken from the plaintiff's.
14. By referring to the above four options, the Plaintiff contended that the Plaintiff's work could not have been taken from the Defendants' because ''Moondru Mugam'' is admittedly much prior in point of time. As regards mere chance, the Plaintiff contended that the similarities are so striking that they cannot be by mere chance. Since the Plaintiff claims title from the producer of ''Moondru Mugam'', whereas the Defendants' claim originality, the two works are not from a common source. Therefore, the Plaintiff contends that the only reasonable conclusion is that the Defendants' work is a copy of the Plaintiff's copyrighted material.
15. The second Defendant submitted that the script has not been placed on record by the Plaintiff. The second Defendant also stated that the Plaintiff is not the owner of the copyright in the movie ''Moondru Mugam'', which is owned by the third Defendant. The second Defendant pointed out that the Plaintiff did not take any steps to remake ''Moondru Mugam'' in Tamil in spite of the lapse of more than seven years from the date of alleged _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.15 of 26 C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019 assignment and that the present suit was filed in view of the success of ''Mersal'', which was made in the year 2017. The second Defendant relied upon R.G.Anand and, in particular, paragraph 45 and 46 thereof, to point out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there can be no copyright in an idea, theme, plot, etc. The second Defendant also pointed out that there must be substantial copying to conclude that the Defendant is guilty of an act of piracy. With reference to the communication from the Tamil Film Producers' Council, the second Defendant pointed out that Mr.S.Kathiresan, who is the Director of the Plaintiff, is the Honorary Secretary of the Tamil Film Producers' Council. By contrast, Ex.D3 is from the Script Writers Union, which is a neutral body. By drawing reference to paragraphs 5, 9 and 15 of the written statement, the second Defendant contended that there are significant differences between the two movies. The second Defendant also pointed out that no declaration of infringement was prayed for and no evidence was adduced for claiming a sum of Rs.4 crores as damages.
16. The first Defendant submitted that the third Defendant has not alleged infringement. The next contention of the first Defendant was that the suit is not maintainable in the absence of a prayer for declaration. The _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.16 of 26 C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019 third Defendant submitted that only remake rights in Tamil were assigned and not the entire copyright. According to the third Defendant, the copyright in the movie ''Moondru Mugam'' was infringed by making the movie ''Mersal''.
17. By taking stock of the rival contentions on these issues, it should be determined whether the Plaintiff has established copying by the first and second Defendants. The principles on the basis of which an action for copyright infringement should be tested were set out in paragraph 46 of the SCC Report of R.G.Anand. The said paragraph is set out below:
''46. Thus, on a careful consideration and elucidation of the various authorities and the case law on the subject discussed above, the following propositions emerge:
1. There can be no copyright in an idea, subject-
matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts and violation of the copyright in such cases is confined to the form, manner and arrangement and expression of the idea by the author of the copyrighted work.
2. Where the same idea is being developed in a different manner, it is manifest that the source being common, similarities are bound to occur. In such a case the courts should determine whether or not the similarities are on _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.17 of 26 C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019 fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression adopted in the copyrighted work. If the defendant's work is nothing but a literal imitation of the copyrighted work with some variations here and there it would amount to violation of the copyright. In other words, in order to be actionable the copy must be a substantial and material one which at once leads to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty of an act of piracy.
3. One of the surest and the safest test to determine whether or not there has been a violation of copyright is to see if the reader, spectator or the viewer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original.
4. Where the theme is the same but is presented and treated differently so that the subsequent work becomes a completely new work, no question of violation of copyright arises.
5. Where however apart from the similarities appearing in the two works there are also material and broad dissimilarities which negative the intention to copy the original and the coincidences appearing in the two works are clearly incidental no infringement of the copyright comes into existence.
6. As a violation of copyright amounts to an act of piracy it must be proved by clear and cogent evidence after _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.18 of 26 C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019 applying the various tests laid down by the case-law discussed above.
7. Where however the question is of the violation of the copyright of stage play by a film producer or a director the task of the plaintiff becomes more difficult to prove piracy. It is manifest that unlike a stage play a film has a much broader prospective, wider field and a bigger background where the defendants can by introducing a variety of incidents give a colour and complexion different from the manner in which the copyrighted work has expressed the idea. Even so, if the viewer after seeing the film gets a totality of impression that the film is by and large a copy of the original play, violation of the copyright may be said to be proved.'' Thus, undoubtedly, there can be no copyright in an idea, theme or concept and copyright is confined to the manner in which an idea is expressed. In order to constitute copying, literal imitation is not necessary; however, there should be substantial copying. In order to determine whether there is substantial copying, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the spectator or viewer, after reading or viewing both the works in question, should leave with the unmistakable impression that the subsequent work is a copy of the original. Therefore, the above test should be applied to the facts of the _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.19 of 26 C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019 present case. One of the challenges in undertaking this exercise is that the scripts of the two movies are not before the Court. Likewise, the screenplays of the two movies are not before the Court. Indeed, the two movies have also not been exhibited in evidence to enable the viewing thereof. Therefore, the limited evidence on record, in this regard, should be examined.
18. In the pleadings, at paragraph 5, the Plaintiff has set out the following table enumerating the alleged similarities:
Sl. Moondru Mugam Story Mersal Story
No.
1. Honest father is a Police Officer Honest father a Village Head namely
namely Alex Pandian and his two Thalapathy and his two sons are
sons Arun and John, one is a Maran and Vetri, one is a Doctor
business man another is a rowdy. another is a magician / murderer.
2. One of the Heroines Radhika is a One of the Heroines Samantha is a
Press Reporter pairing the first son. Media Reporter pairing the first son. She is following the first son for She is following the first son for exclusive interview. exclusive interview.
3. The father Alex Pandian is brutally The father Vijay is brutally murdered murdered by Senthamarai and his by Dr.Daniel (S.J.Surya) and his assistant friend. Before his death he assistant friend. Before his death he challenges that he will be reborn to challenges that he will be reborn to take revenge. take revenge.
4. At the time of Alex Pandian's At the time of Vetri Maran's (Vijay) Murder his wife gives birth her sons Murder his wife passes away by and passes away. giving birth the second child.
5. Both the sons are brought up by Both the sons are brought to by separate foster parents, the eldest by separate foster parents, the eldest by a a Hindu family and the youngest by a Hindu family and the youngest by a _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.20 of 26 C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019 Sl. Moondru Mugam Story Mersal Story No. Christian father. Christian father.
6. The episode of the Alex Pandian is The episode of Vetri Maran is revealed at the time of interval. revealed at the time of interval.
7. The first son Arun comes to India The first son Vijay goes to Foreign from a foreign country to take Country to take revenge. revenge.
8. The first son Arun is arrested by the The First son Maran is arrested by the Police Officer accusing him for the Police Officer Sathyaraj accusing him murder of Gopal the assistant of for the murder of the Assistant of Senthamarai. Dr.Daniel.
9. In the climax the prime villain In the climax the prime villain Senthamarai is killed by the sons of S.J.Suriya is killed by the sons of the Alex Pandian. father Vetri Maran.
Similarly, the comparative table, which is a part of Ex.D1, is set out below:
Sl. MERSAL MOONDRU MUGAM
No.
1. Based on a social message Based on personal revenge
2. Neither of the brothers side with the A brother sides with the villain villain
3. Both the brothers work towards Both the brothers do not work similar causes towards the same cause.
4. Elder brother gives free medical care Elder brother seeks revenge on the for the poor. killer of his father
5. Younger brother kills those that are Younger brother does chores for involved in medical scams that affect money and sides with the villain, the poor. He surrenders to the police, against his own brother. to save his elder brother, posing to be him.
6. A big business man/Doctor who is A local liquor brewer is the villain.
involved in medical business is the villain.
_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.21 of 26 C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019
19. On examining the above, it appears that the focus of ''Mersal'' is the exploitation of the common man by doctors and others in the medical profession, whereas the focus of ''Moondru Mugam'' is the revenge exacted by the first son for the murder of his father. There is sufficient basis to conclude that there are similarities with regard to the central characters, and with regard to the central events in the two movies. Indeed, it may not be unreasonable to conclude that ''Mersal'' may have been inspired to an extent by ''Moondru Mugam''. Whether drawing inspiration from a movie amounts to the act of piracy, which is actionable under copyright law, is a distinct matter. Even with regard to the central events in the two movies, the reason for the murder of the honest father in ''Mersal'' is that he questioned the act of medical negligence by the doctor/villain. By contrast, in ''Moondru Mugam'', the reason for the murder of the father is completely different inasmuch as the father is an honest police officer. Thus, although there are some similarities and reasonable basis to conclude that the makers of “Mersal” may have been inspired by “Moondru Mugam”, on the basis of the evidence on record, it cannot be concluded that a reasonable viewer of average intelligence who views the two movies would leave with the unmistakable impression that ''Mersal'' is a copy of ''Moondru Mugam''. _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.22 of 26 C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019 Consequently, the Plaintiff has failed to establish that there is an infringement of copyright as per law.
20. The Plaintiff has prayed for a permanent injunction to restrain the exhibition of the movie ''Mersal''. It is a matter of record that the movie ''Mersal'' was exhibited not only in theatres but also by the exploitation of satellite rights and OTT rights. Therefore, the relief of permanent injunction has been rendered infructuous by subsequent events. As regards the relief of damages, the Plaintiff has not adduced any evidence of loss. For reasons set out above, the Plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the suit.
21. In the result, C.S.No.116 of 2019 is dismissed. On the loser pays principle, each Defendant shall be entitled to costs assessed in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Plaintiff towards lawyer's fees and other expenses. Consequently, connected original application is closed.
08.06.2022 Index : Yes Internet : Yes rrg _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.23 of 26 C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019 Plaintiff's witnesses: Nil Defendants' witnesses: Nil Documents exhibited by the Plaintiff:
Sl.No Exhibi Date Particulars of Documents
ts
1. Ex.P1 02.08.2007 Assignment Agreement between M/s.Sathiya Movies and the Plaintiff's Firm M/s.Group Company
2. Ex.P2 22.03.2014 No objection Letter from M/s.Sathiya Movies Assigning the Telugu Dubbing and Remake rights
3. Ex.P3 05.09.2016 Agreement between the Plaintiff and Group Company.
4. Ex.P4 03.11.2016 News in the Web Magazine Screen 4 Screen.
5. Ex.P5 04.11.2016 News about ''Moondru Mugam'' remake in the web magazine ''The Indian Express''
6. Ex.P6 25.10.2017 Letter to the Tamil Film Producers Council by the Plaintiff.
7. Ex.P7 29.10.2017 Complaint letter to the Tamil Film Producers Council to the first Defendant
8. Ex.P8 01.11.2017 Complaint letter to the Tamil Film Producers Council to the second Defendant.
9. Ex.P9 10.11.2017 Reply letter by the second Defendant
10. Ex.P10 14.11.2017 Letter issued by the Plaintiff to the President of Tamil Film Producers Council
11. Ex.P11 16.11.2017 Reply letter by the Tamil Film Producers Council to the second Defendant _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.24 of 26 C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019 Sl.No Exhibi Date Particulars of Documents ts
12. Ex.P12 01.12.2017 Letter issued by the President of Tamil Film Producers Council to the Tamil Film Directors Association.
13. Ex.P13 26.09.2008 Letter issued by the Tamil Film Producers Council to the Tamil Film Directors Association.
14. Ex.P14 01.10.2018 Letter issued by the Tamil Film Producers Council to the Tamil Film Writers Association.
15. Ex.P15 - Letter issued by the Tamil Film Directors Association to the second Defendant.
16. Ex.P16 03.12.2018 Letter of Authorization by the Plaintiff to its Director K.Kalaiselvi.
Documents exhibited by the Defendants:
Sl. Exhibit Date Particulars of Documents
No. s
1. Ex.D1 - Statement, comparison of the two movies and details of
other movies
2. Ex.D2 - Reviews and recognitions of the movie Mersal and the
second Defendant.
3. Ex.D3 - Letter issued by Mr.Vikraman, President of the
Director's Union.
SKRJ
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.25 of 26
C.S.No.(Comm.suit)116 of 2019
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J
rrg
Pre-Delivery Judgment
C.S(Comm.suit)No.116 of 2019
08.06.2022
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.26 of 26