License Suspicious: Bombay High Court Restrains Production Of 'Kallapart', Tamil Remake Of Spanish Film 'Al Final De Tunel'

The Bombay High Court temporarily restrained the production of 'Kallapart', a Tamil remake of a Spanish film observing that the remake license agreement was suspicious as it referred to the global pandemic despite allegedly having been executed in 2018."It is surprising that the Annexure to the agreement purportedly executed on June 27, 2018, refers to a pandemic, which hit the globe sometime in March 2020. At this stage, to arrive at prima facie conclusions, this Court finds that there are indeed suspicious circumstances and glaring inconsistencies surrounding the very document i.e., agreement dated 27th June, 2018, upon which the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 (makers of Kallapart), have placed reliance in order to claim that they acquired rights much prior to the Plaintiff executing the agreement dated 07th September, 2020, with the Defendant No. 4 (executive agent of the Spanish Film) for remake rights of the aforesaid Spanish film."Justice Manish Pitale granted interim relief to plaintiff Manzar Studios Private Limited against Moving Frames (maker of Kallapart) in a copyright suit over Spanish film 'Al Final De Tunel'.Manzar Studios is a Mumbai based company engaged in production of feature films documentaries etc. The plaintiff claimed that it entered into a licensing agreement on September 7, 2020, with the executive agent of the film for remake rights of the film. According to the plaintiff, during the production of the remake, it came across the Tamil film Kallapart whose posters were similar to 'Al Final De Tunel'. The plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist notice to the maker Moving Frames (defendant) after which the defendant claimed that it is acquired all rights of remake of the Spanish film via an agreement on June 27, 2018.Later, the defendant uploaded a teaser of its film YouTube. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit and sought interim relief.The court noted that there is no account transfer towards consideration in respect of the execution of the 2018 agreement. The defendants explained the amount was transferred to their representative Nirupama Santosh who went to Spain to give cash amount to the film's executive agent towards the agreement. The defendants showed an email to support this. The court noted that the while the email was delivered on June 28, 2018, it refers to cash receipt made a month later, i.e., July 27, 2018. Further, it refers to the representative as Nirupama 'Sundar' and not Nirupama 'Santosh' as claimed by the defendants. The email referred to terms and conditions in draft copy of the agreement. The court found this surprising as the defendant claimed that the agreement was already executed on a day before the email was sent on June 27, 2018.The court further noted that an annexure to the 2018 agreement refers to the existing pandemic conditions. The court was surprised to see that it refers to a pandemic which hit the globe about two years later in March 2020.The plaintiff produced account statements indicating the consideration paid for the 2020 agreement. The Spanish film's executive agent has gone on record in communications with the plaintiff and the defendant to vouch for the genuineness of the 2020 agreement. The executive agent also filed an affidavit to that effect.The defendant questioned the plaintiff's claim as the plaintiff did not produce the original agreement allegedly in its favour and it is not clear whether that agreement was digitally signed. The court did not accept this argument because of the executive agent's affidavit vouching for the genuineness of the plaintiff's 2020 agreement. In fact, the executive agent denied execution of the 2018 agreement in favour of the defendant, the court noted.The court said that the three parameters for interim relief, i.e., strong prima facie case, the applicant suffering grave and irreparable loss in the absence of interim reliefs, and the balance of convenience being in favour of the plaintiff, have been fulfilled.Therefore, the court restrained the defendants from making, distributing, advertising etc. the film Kallapart or any part of it to the public on television, OTT platforms, internet, theatre etc.The court also restrained the makers of the film from passing it of as being associated with the Spanish film in any manner.Counsels for the plaintiff - Arguing Counsels: Ashish Kamat assisted by Megha Chandra, Advocate on Record: Naik Naik & Co, Deputy Managing Partner Madhu Gadodia, Associate Partner Deepak Deshmukh, Manager Sujoy Mukherji, Senior Associate Nisha Kaba, Trainee Associate Tarini Kulkarni.Counsels for the defendants nos. 1 to 3 - Advocate Rita K. Joshi, Advocate Swapnil P. Kamble, Advocate Ashok D. Shetty Case no. – Interim Application (Lodging) No. 19199 of 2022 In Commercial IP Suit (Lodging) No. 19193 of 2022Case title – Manzar Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Moving Frames & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 511 Click Here to Read Order

License Suspicious: Bombay High Court Restrains Production Of 'Kallapart', Tamil Remake Of Spanish Film 'Al Final De Tunel'

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

License Suspicious: Bombay High Court Restrains Production Of 'Kallapart', Tamil Remake Of Spanish Film 'Al Final De Tunel'

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers