Bombay High Court Rejects Plea To Stay OTT Release of Movie 83 On Hotstar &Netflix

"Defendant No. 4 (Star India) and Defendant No. 5 (Netflix) have antecedent rights of exploitation of the subject film on satellite and digital media and which has [been] acknowledged and accepted by the Plaintiff (Mad Man), the application is rejected," Justice Riyaz Chagla observed.

Mad Man had filed a suit against Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt. Ltd, Phantom Films Pvt. Ltd., Star India Pvt. Ltd., Netflix Global LLC and others seeking injunction against the release of the film 83 for alleged copyright infringement.

The crux of the suit concerns interpretation of clauses of Consent Arbitration Award dated 3rd March, 2021. The award was passed between Mad Man and producer Madhu Mantena as claimants against defendants RBEP Entertainment Pvt. Ltd & Phantom Films Pvt. Ltd, and Matena's former partners director Anurag Kashyap, Vikramaditya Motwane and Vikas Bahl.

It also required interpretation of Consent Terms dated December 6, 2021 in an application to execute the award.

Significantly, the court held that Consent Minutes being cited by Mad Man, would necessarily apply only to future agreements Reliance entered with third parties and not existing agreements. Moreover, consent terms to which neither Netflix nor Star were a party, could not bind them, Justice Chagla said.

Arguments

Plaintiff Mad Man, through senior Advocate Virag Tulzapurkar argued that through the consent order in 2021, Mad Man was assigned 37.5% ownership in 83, and any exploitation of the film without its consent was copyright infringement.

Moreover, since the OTT platforms drew their rights from RBEP & Phantom, who were signatories to the consent terms, they were bound by the terms. Also, the platforms were informed about the terms.

While Reliance Studios claimed that Mad Man failed to question the OTT platform's rights, Star India and Netflix argued that they were not a party to the consent award dated 3^rd March 2021 and/or certain Consent Terms dated 6^th December 2021 and thus none of its terms were binding on them.

They claimed through their counsels – Senior Advocate Sharan Jagtiani and Advocate Ashish Kamat that permission to exploit rights in the film were vested in favour of Star India in 2017 and in favour of Netflix Global in the year 2019 i.e., much prior to the Consent Terms of December 2021 vide which Mad Man was allotted 37.5% ownership in the Intellectual Property Rights of the Film.

It was also contended that Mad Man's rights of exploitation only begins at the expiry of 10 years i.e., the First Cycle as elaborated under Clause 1.2 and 1.4 of the Consent Terms.

The Court pronounced the detailed ad-interim Order, and ruled the following:

1. Clauses of the consent terms would apply to only future agreements, between Reliance Studios and third parties, for exploitation of Digital and/or Satellite Rights of the subject film.

"In my prima facie view…this certainly cannot apply to the Agreements which are already referred to in the Consent Minutes of Order and Clause 1.2 of the "83 Agreement" as having already created rights in favour of these third parties including Star and Netflix."

2. Netflix and Star have antecedent rights for both for digital and satellite rights for a period of 10 years

3. Madman's right to exploit the Film only commences after the period of 10 years. Thus, prima facie, Madman does not have a right to restrain Reliance Studios, Star or Netflix from exploiting the Film;

3. Plaint has not challenged the antecedent rights of Netflix & Star;

4. Madman cannot seek injunction especially when the said rights have been acknowledged in the same document (Consent Terms) which granted Madman the rights qua the Film

Case Title: Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Versus Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 102

Appearances: Mad Man was represented by Sr Counsel Virag Tulzapurkar, Advs Sameer Pandit and Anuj Jain of Wadia Gandhi & Co.

Reliance Entertainment Studios was represented by Sr Counsel Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Counsel with Mr. Prasad Shenoy, Mr. Saket Mone and Mr. Abhishek Salian of Vidhii Partners.

Star India was represented by Sr Adv Sharan Jagtiani, along with Advs Thomas George, Tanvi Sinha and Mudit Tayal of Saikrishna & Associates.

Netflix Global was represented by Adv Ashish Kamat i/b Saikrishna & Associates.