Madras High Court Grants Permanent Injunction In Digital Broadcast Infringement: M/s. Sun TV Network Ltd. Vs. M/s. Writemen Media Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

This decision of the Madras High Court serves a significant reminder that television and cinematographic rights are valuable proprietary interests that cannot be exploited casually or without due authorisation. The Court upheld the Plaintiff’s copyright in an extensive catalogue of films and found that the Defendant had telecast the said works without obtaining the requisite licence. Consequently, the court granted a decree of permanent injunction restraining further unauthorised broadcast, directed rendition of accounts in respect of the infringing exploitation and awarded costs quantified at Rs. 3 lacs in favour of the Plaintiff.

Facts of the case

The Plaintiff, M/s Sun TV Network Ltd., asserted exclusive copyright in an extensive catalogue of cinematographic films described in Schedule A of the plaint. The said rights were stated to emanate from various assignment agreements, supplementary agreements, lab letters, and censor certificates pertaining to each film, all of which were placed on record through 252 documentary exhibits and substantiated by the testimony of its authorised signatory, Mr. M. Jyothi Basu. It was alleged that the Defendant, M/s Writemen Media Pvt. Ltd., had been unauthorisedly telecasting and commercially exploiting the said films and associated songs on its channel “Public Music” and other platforms without obtaining any license or permission from the Plaintiff. Although summons were duly served and the Defendant initially entered appearance through counsel, it failed to file a written statement and subsequently remained unrepresented, resulting in the matter proceeding ex-parte vide order on 05.10.2023. In support of its allegations of infringement, the Plaintiff produced screenshots and a pen drive containing recordings of the impugned telecasts, accompanied by a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, thereby demonstrating the actual broadcast the copyrighted works by the Defendant.

Issues

The key issues that arose for considerations before the Court were as follows:

1. Whether the Plaintiff had validly established its copyright and corresponding broadcast rights in respect of the cinematographic films enumerated in Schedule A to the plaint?
2. Whether the Defendant had infringed such rights by telecasting and commercially exploiting the said films and songs without obtaining authorization or license from the Plaintiff?
3. Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to a decree of permanent injunction along with ancillary reliefs, including rendition of accounts and damages.
4. Whether, in view of the Defendant having been set ex-parte, the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff was sufficient in law to warrant the grant of the reliefs sought.

Arguments

Plaintiff’s arguments

The Plaintiff contended that it had lawfully acquired exclusive copyright and broadcast rights in respect of each of the suit films by virtue of valid assignment agreements and ancillary documentation, all of which were exhibited before the Court. In its written arguements, particularly paragraphs 5 and 6, the Plaintiff systematically mapped the documentary evidence on a film-wise basis, demonstrating the existence of assignment agreements, supplementary agreements, laboratory letters, censor certificates, and related correspondence pertaining to every title in question.

To substantiate the allegation of infringement, the Plaintiff relied upon screenshots capturing the Defendant’s broadcasts and produced a pen drive containing recordings of the telecast of songs from the Schedule B films. These electronic records, supported by a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, were relied upon to show that the Defendant had broadcast the copyrighted works without licence, consent, or authorisation.

On this foundation, the Plaintiff sought a comprehensive decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from in any manner exploiting or communicating the suit films to the public across all modes and formats, including satellite television, DTH, IPTV, internet streaming, mobile platforms, VCD/DVD, HD/3D formats, transport-based broadcasting, and any other existing or future technological medium. In addition, the Plaintiff claimed damages quantified at ₹30 lakhs and prayed for rendition of accounts of the profits allegedly earned by the Defendant from November 2017 onwards through the unauthorised exploitation of the works.

Defendant’s arguments

The Defendant, despite having initially entered appearance through counsel, failed to file its written statement and subsequently remained absent from the proceedings, as a result of which the suit was ordered to proceed ex-parte. Consequently, there were no rebuttal pleadings, documents or evidence on record to challenge the Plaintiff’s chain of title or to offer any justification for the impugned telecasts. In effect, the documentary exhibits and the oral testimony of evidence of the authorised signatory remained uncontroverted and unrebutted, leaving the Court to adjudicate the matter solely on the basis of the Plaintiff’s evidence as it stood on record.

Decision of the Court

The Court accepted the Plaintiff’s case and held that the documentary evidence on record clearly established a valid and subsisting chain of assignment of copyright in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of each of the films enumerated in Schedule A. Upon perusal of the exhibits, including the assignment agreements, supplementary agreements, laboratory letters and censor certificates, the Court was satisfied that the Plaintiff had successfully proved its title.

With regard to infringement, the Court relied upon the screenshots and the electronic records contained in the pen drive, duly supported by the Section 65-B certificate, and concluded that the Defendant had in fact telecast the Plaintiff’s cinematographic works and songs without authorisation. In the absence of any rebuttal or justification from the Defendant, the Court held that such unauthorised broadcast amounted to infringement of the Plaintiff’s copyright and broadcast rights.

Accordingly, the Court granted a decree of permanent injunction in terms of prayer (a), restraining the Defendant from exploiting or communicating the suit films to the public through virtually all existing and future modes of broadcast and dissemination. However, insofar as the claim for damages of ₹30 lakhs was concerned, the Court declined to award the said sum on the ground that there was no specific or cogent evidence on record to quantify the precise loss suffered. Nevertheless, the Court allowed the relief of rendition of accounts from November 2017 onwards, thereby enabling the Plaintiff to ascertain the profits earned by the Defendant from the infringing exploitation. The suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff with costs quantified at ₹3 lacs, covering court fees, legal expenses, and allied charges, thereby granting comprehensive relief to the successful party.

Conclusion/Analysis

This judgment highlights the effectiveness of copyright enforcement when a rights holder maintains a comprehensive documentary trail and supports its claims with admissible electronic evidence. The Plaintiff’s meticulous preservation of assignment agreements, board resolutions, censor certificates, and digital proof enabled the Court to readily accept its ownership and the fact of infringement, even in an ex-parte proceeding. For broadcasters and digital platforms, the ruling serves as a clear warning that unauthorised telecast of content carries serious legal consequences, particularly in an era where broadcasts can be easily recorded and produced as evidence.

At the same time, the Court adopted a balanced approach to monetary relief, declining the quantified claim of ₹30 lacs for lack of specific proof, yet granting rendition of accounts to ensure that the Defendant does not profit from wrongful exploitation. The decision reinforces that while damages must be strictly proved, courts will not hesitate to restrain infringement and ensure financial accountability where copyright violations are established.