When Delay Defeats Copyright Claims

Facts

Everest Entertainment LLP, the plaintiff, claimed to be the sole and exclusive owner of the copyright and intellectual property in the Marathi film “Mee Shivajiraje Bhosale Boltoy!” produced under an assignment agreement dated June 26, 2008, and its addendum dated August 28, 2013, executed with the first defendant, Mahesh Vaman Manjrekar. Under this agreement, Manjrekar, the director and original rights holder, assigned all intellectual property rights in the film—including the script, dialogues, cinematograph film, and promotional materials—to Everest Entertainment.

In 2025, the defendants, led by Manjrekar and others associated with Krizolh Filmz LLP, Satyasai Productions Pvt. Ltd., and Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., began production and promotion of a new Marathi film titled “Punha Shivajiraje Bhosale.” The plaintiff alleged that the new film was a direct copy or unauthorized sequel to its earlier film. The plaintiff contended that the defendants had not only copied the storyline, theme, and characters but also used the same title format, font style, and promotional materials that were confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s work.

Everest Entertainment further asserted that the original film had gained immense popularity and goodwill among audiences and that the impugned film’s title and marketing strategy misrepresented an association or continuity, leading to public confusion and deception. The plaintiff, therefore, sought to restrain the release of the defendants’ film, scheduled for theatrical release on October 31, 2025.

Procedural Background

The plaintiff filed the commercial intellectual property suit on October 10, 2025, along with an interim application seeking ad-interim injunctions to restrain the defendants from releasing the impugned film. The initial bench recused itself from hearing the matter, after which the case was reassigned. On October 17, 2025, another bench directed the defendants to arrange a private screening of the impugned film for the plaintiff without background music. The screening took place on October 20, 2025.

After viewing the film, the plaintiff claimed to have identified over 30 points of substantial similarity between the two works and sought to amend the plaint accordingly. The vacation court heard the matter on October 24, 2025, when the plaintiff pressed for ad-interim injunctions restraining the release of “Punha Shivajiraje Bhosale.”

The defendants strongly opposed the grant of any injunction, contending that the plaintiff had delayed unreasonably in filing the suit despite being aware of the impugned project since April 2025.

The Core Dispute

The core question before the Court was whether the defendants’ film “Punha Shivajiraje Bhosale” amounted to an infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright and whether the plaintiff was entitled to an ad-interim injunction stopping its release.

Plaintiff’s Claims

• Substantial copying of story, theme, and dialogues, amounting to copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957
• Use of similar title and presentation amounting to passing off and misleading the public into believing that the impugned film was a sequel or derivative work

Defendants’ Contentions

• No copyright in idea, historical concept, or the name “Shivaji Raje Bhosale”
• New storyline focused on farmer distress and corruption, unlike plaintiff’s film
• Heavy investments and injunction would cause irreparable loss

Judicial Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that the plaintiff had admitted knowledge of the impugned film’s production as early as April 2025 and had even issued a legal notice on April 30, 2025. Replies from the defendants were received in July 2025, yet the plaintiff waited until October 10, 2025, to file the suit. The Court found no plausible explanation for this delay.

Citing precedents, the Court reiterated that litigants who approach the Court at the eleventh hour to stop film releases after months of inaction cannot claim equitable reliefs.

Ad-Interim Injunction Principles

• Discretionary and equitable remedy
• Requires promptness and bona fides
• Plaintiff delayed nearly five months — tactical move

Copyright Analysis

• Copyright in cinematograph films under Section 14 protects against facsimile copies only
• Similar themes or ideas ≠ infringement unless original recording reproduced
• No substantial reproduction of script or dialogues
• Common Marathi expressions not copyrightable

Title and Passing Off

• No exclusivity over historical figure’s name
• Common cultural imagery cannot be monopolized

The Court concluded no actionable infringement or passing off and noted plaintiff lacked diligence.

Final Decision

Court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for ad-interim injunctions, citing delay and no prima facie case. Release of “Punha Shivajiraje Bhosale” allowed on October 31, 2025. Plaintiff may pursue suit on merits post defendants’ filings.

Conclusion

This judgment underscores promptness in seeking equitable remedies in film IP disputes and reiterates that copyright protects expression, not ideas. Generic titles, historical names, and common cultural phrases cannot be monopolized.

Case Details

Disclaimer

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi