Bombay High Court: In a stay application filed against the release of the web series ‘Gram Chikitsalaya’ claiming copyright infringement, a Single Judge Bench of Manish Pitale., J., rejected the application, holding that not only did the applicant approach the Court at the eleventh hour, but it had also failed to justify the delay in approaching the Court. The Court further held that, prima facie, the idea of an educated MBBS doctor reaching a rural set up, leading to interaction with rural folk and an existing vaidya alleged to be a quack, could not be considered a copyrightable idea.
Background
The applicant was an assignee of an original script titled ‘Quach Shankar/ Quack Shambhu’ (“the script”) in which respondent 1 holds copyright. Respondent 1 claimed that it was the original author of the script, and it was registered with the Screenwriters Association in 2020. The applicant contended that the contested web series titled ‘Gram Chikitsalaya’ (“the web series”) infringes upon the copyright of the script of ‘Quack Shambhu’.
Upon seeing the trailer of the web series, the applicant sent a notice on 30-04-2025 to the respondents, and respondent 3 responded to the same.
Aggrieved, the applicant filed the present application seeking a stay on the release of the web series, which was to be released on 09-05-2025 on Amazon Prime.
The applicant contended that the comparison between specific scenes in the trailer of the web series and the script illustrated that the central idea, as well as individual scenes, were copied by the web series. According to the applicant, respondent 1 had emailed the script in 2021 to the respondent 2. Respondent 2 was interested in playing one of the two major characters, but respondent 1 did not agree. Thus, the script was clandestinely sent by respondent 2 to respondent 3, who produced the web series and rewarded respondent 2 with a central character role in the web series.
Analysis
The Court noted that contrary to the claims of the applicant, the proposed release of the web series was in the public domain at least from 07/08-05-2025 rather than 30-04-2025 when the trailer of the same was released. This could not be denied by the applicant. The Court reiterated that if an applicant approaches the Court at the eleventh hour in such cases, the Court ought to be slow in granting ad-interim reliefs. This is because a substantial amount of money is spent by producers and those involved in such creative works, and staying the release of such films/web-series would cause immense loss to all those involved in it. In this regard, the Court placed reliance on Dashrath B. Rathod v. Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 345, and Sandeep Gangatkar v. Sandeep Kewlani, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 148. Therefore, applying the said position of law, the Court held that not only did the applicant approach the Court at the eleventh hour, but it had also failed to justify the delay in approaching the Court.
As far as the allegations against respondent 2 were concerned, the Court noted that respondent 3 had produced ample material to show that the involvement of respondent 2 in the web series, appeared to be only from September 2024 and the email exchanges placed on record, show that it was respondent 3, who forwarded the story of web-series to respondent 2 in September 2024. Thus, the Court held that the theory propounded by the applicant about respondent 2 assisting respondent 3 in infringing upon the copyright of the script appeared to be far-fetched.
Regarding the similarity between scenes from the trailer and the script, the Court held that the allegations were unfounded. Upon perusal of the script and the documents presented by respondent 3 showing how the story in the web-series was progressing from episode 1 to 5, the Court held that, prima facie, it did not appear that there was an attempt by respondent 3 to copy the central idea and the scenes covered under the script.
The Court held that, prima facie, the idea of an educated MBBS doctor reaching a rural set up, leading to interaction with rural folk and an existing vaidya alleged to be a quack, could not be considered a copyrightable idea.
Regarding the reliance placed on the agreement between respondent 3 and the two writers of the web series engaging them as writers for the web series, the Court noted that on public platforms the two writers had been given credit and the same fact had been mentioned by respondent 3 in its response to the applicant’s notice.
The Court agreed with the reliance placed by the respondents on Vishwas Patil v. Vision World Films LLP1 wherein the applicant had sought a stay on the release of a movie three days before release and prayed for pre-screening. The Court in the aforesaid case held that such a course was not available for the plaintiff, who, in the first place, failed to make out a prima facie case regarding a serious case of breach of copyright. The Court also observed that merely comparing the scenes of the trailer of the film proposed to be released, with the script in which the plaintiff claims copyright, cannot be the basis for claiming urgent ad-interim reliefs or for such pre-screening.
Thus, the Court held that the applicant has failed to make out a case for granting ad-interim reliefs and rejected the application. Accordingly, the court granted six weeks to the respondents to file a reply and listed the matter for 30-07-2025.
[Katha Vachak Films Private Limited v. Anindya Bikas Datta, Interim Application (Lodging) No. 14740 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit (Lodging) No. 14635 of 2025, decided on 08-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Gaurav Shukla, Darshit Jain, and Jainam Jain
For the respondents: Veer Kankari, Rashmin Khandekar, Siddharth Chavan, Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond, Ameet Naik, Megha Chandra, Madhu Gadodia, Sujoy Mukherji, Lokesh Kansal, Deveesha Tudekar, Tanish Bhandari, Senior Advocate Ashish Kamat, Thomas George, Neeti Nihal, Bargavi Baradwaj and Niyati Fetepuria,
1. Interim Application No.1 of 2019 in Commercial IP Suit (Lodging) No.1247 of 2019