Disposed

Raj Television Network Limited v. Bravo Hd Movies

Madras HC15 Feb 2024C.S(COMM DIV)/327/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Copyright infringement suit against a YouTube channel and YouTube over unauthorised exploitation of scheduled films. After the second defendant took down the films pursuant to the interim injunction, and with the first defendant set ex parte, the suit was disposed of on that recorded statement.

What did the court decide?

Suit disposed of recording second defendant's statement that infringing films were taken down; connected application closed; no costs.

Raj Television Network Limited Vs Bravo Hd Movies — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.S. (COMM.DIV.) No.327 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

C.S. (COMM.DIV.) No.327 of 2023 and

¶7

A.No.6827 of 2023

¶8

Raj Television Network Limited, Rep. By its authorised signatory Mr.Manimaran S, Poes Road, Chennai – 18. .. Plaintiff

¶9

/versus/

¶10

1.Bravo HD Movies, No.12/6, Indhira Bhavan, S.V.Lingam Road, Chennai – 26.

¶11

2.YouTube, Google LLC, New Delhi – 110 001. .. Defendants

¶12

Prayer: Civil Suit has been filed under Order VII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, 1956 read with Sections 55 and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, praying;

¶13

(a) to grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and other associated channels/sub-channels of the first defendant in any manner exhibiting, exploiting, or interfering with the exploitation of the

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

1/5

¶16

C.S. (COMM.DIV.) No.327 of 2023

¶17

plaintiff's copyrights in the schedule mentioned films, by way of storing, broadcasting, commercially exploiting/monetizing, communicating to the public and/or otherwise making available the plaintiff's copyright in the said films, on/through YouTube Channels of the first defendant without prior authorization or license, and/or in any other manner whatsoever which violates the plaintiff's rights under the Copyright Act, 1957;

¶18

(b) to grant an order of mandatory injunction directing the first defendant and its associated channels/sub-channels of the first defendant and on their behalf, to send statement of accounts/revenues earned on account of the exploitation by the first defendant of the plaintiff's copyright in schedule mentioned films, on or through YouTube channels including the associated channels/sub-channels of the first defendant including but not limited to Bravo HD Movies, across the world and/or in any other manner whatsoever; and

¶19

c)for costs of the suit.

¶20

For Plaintiff : Mr.Vijayan Subramanian For D2 : Mr.Jesin Prabhu George for M/s.Leela & Co.

¶21

D1 is set exparte

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

2/5

¶24

C.S. (COMM.DIV.) No.327 of 2023

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

As seen from the affidavit of service filed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff enclosing the delivery reports, both the respondents/defendants have been duly served in the interlecutory applications. The learned counsel for the second respondent/second defendant is represented by a counsel, who would submit, on instructions, that on receipt of the interim injunction order dated 22.12.2023, they had taken down from their internet plaform the films which are disclosed in the schedule to the plaint. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, on instructions, would submit that after recording the said statement of the second defendant, the suit can be disposed of.

¶27

Till date, despite service of notice on the first defendant/first respondent, no one has entered appearance on behalf of them, Therefore, the first respondent is set exparte by this Court.

¶28

In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the second defendant/second respondent that the movies, which are disclosed in the schedule to the plaint, have been taken down from their platform

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

3/5

¶31

C.S. (COMM.DIV.) No.327 of 2023

¶32

pursuant to the interim injunction granted by this Court, Application No.6827 of 2023 filed by the plaintiff requires no order from this Court.

¶33

After recording the submission of the learned counsel for the second defendant/second respondent that they have already taken down the movies, which are disclosed in the schedule to the plaint, from their internet platform, this suit is disposed of. Consequently, connected A.No.6827 of 2023 is closed. No Costs.

¶34

15.02.2024

¶35

rkm

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

4/5

¶38

C.S. (COMM.DIV.) No.327 of 2023

¶39

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶40

rkm

¶41

C.S. (COMM.DIV.) No.327 of 2023 and A.No.6827 of 2023

¶42

15.02.2024

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

5/5

Raj Television Network Limited v. Bravo Hd Movies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Television Network Limited v. Bravo Hd Movies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs Satyan Remedies Pvt. Ltd.

Viacom18 Media Private Limited Represented By Its Power Of Attorney Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Nakkheeran Gopal Alias R R Gopal Vs P.Sivasubramaniam @ Sivasubramanian

Indchem Sales Corporation Rep By Its Partner Paresh Pratap Vasa Vs Mohib Shoes Private Limited Represented By Its Directors

Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

M/S.v.v Care Enterprises Vs Prabas Vcare Health Clinic Private Limited and Another