Entire Song Not Copied, Single Line Used As Movie Title After Registration: Karnataka Court Vacates Interim Injunction On Film By Ex-MP Divya Spandana

A civil court in Bengaluru has given go ahead for release of Kannada film “Swathi Muttina Male Haniye’, which is made by production house M/s Applebox Studios LLP founded by film actor and ex-Member of Parliament, Divya Spandana, popularly known as Ramya.

Additional City Civil Judge Padma Prasad vacated the ex-parte temporary injunction order granted in favour of veteran film producer and director, S.Rajendra Singh Babu.

Babu claimed that he has produced and directed Kannada movie ‘Bannada Gejje’ wherein he has picturised a song “Swathi Muttina Male Haniye” which is the most popular song.

Further, he commenced the Kannada movie in the name of “Swathi Muttina Male Haniye” and completed 70 per cent of the movie, but meantime its actor Ambareesh expired, hence he was not able to complete the movie.

The Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce argued that the song title in itself would not confirm proprietary right over it as the song title would not be a complete work in itself. Moreover, the plaintiff has failed to plead when he has started the movie titled as “Swathi Muttina Male Haniye” and when it has been stalled or whether the plaintiff intended to complete the movie or release the movie etc.

Further, it has no role whatsoever in infringing the plaintiff’s alleged right as Sree Jagadguru Movies represented by proprietor B.K.Gangadhar had registered the name of “Swathi Muttina Male Haniye” in the month of August 2022, and the plaintiff has not registered the title of the movie.

It was argued on behalf of Spandana and the production house that the rights to the said movie name was with Sri Jagadguru Movies and it has transferred the rights in the title “Swathi Muttina Male Haniye” to them.

Further, they have completed the shooting of movie “Swathi Muttina Male Haniye” and it is in the post production stage and it is to be released in the middle of April. The plaintiff filed this suit to cause loss and hardship to the applicants it was argued.

It was submitted that Babu has not acquired Copyright over the title of the song as the title does not qualify for being described as his works. The combination of the word ‘Swathi’ ‘Muttina’ ‘Male’ and ‘Haniye’ cannot be said to have anything original in it, it was argued. Hence the plaintiff cannot claim any protection under the Copyright’s Act as the title “Swathi Muttina Male Haniye” does not qualify as a Copyright under the meaning of Copyright Act, 1957, it was submitted.

On going through the records the court noted that Babu has not completed the movie “Swathi Muttina Male Haniye” as claimed by him. The plaintiff claimed that according to his memory, it appears that the plaintiff had registered the title of the picture “Swathi Muttina Male Haniye” with the first defendant.

To which the court said “The plaintiff is totally aware that the name of the film has to be registered with the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) so that the plaintiff can acquire right over the title of the movie. The manner in which the plaintiff pleaded about the registration of name of the movie in plaint shows that the plaintiff is not certain about the registration of name of the movie before the first defendant [KFCC].”

The court held “When the plaintiff failed to prove that he has registered the name, certainly he cannot claim right over the title of the movie “Swathi Muttina Male Haniye.”

Further the court held that Spandana and the production house have completed the movie and they are about to release the said movie. "Hence, certainly the claim of the plaintiff cannot be accepted, particularly the plaintiff failed to show that he has got registered the title “Swathi Muttina Male Haniye” before defendant no.1 and also the plaintiff failed to show that one line in the song can be considered as the copyright material.”

It observed,

“If the entire song has been dubbed and copied, then only it can be accepted that the copyright has been infringed. In the case on hand, one single line of the song has been used as a movie name, that too after registering the name before the competent authority / defendant no.1.”

Allowing the application to vacate the ex-parte temporary injunction and allowing the release of the film in theatres, court said “The plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case. When the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case, certainly balance of convenience as well as comparative hardship will not lie on the plaintiff but certainly it is on the defendants.”

Case Title: S.V. Rajendrasingh Babu And The President, Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce & others

Case No: OS 385/2023

Date of Order: 05-04-2023

Appearance: Advocate Chintan Chinnappa, Partner, Spectrum Legal, Vishaka Nikkam, Divya Jain and Akshay Rao for defendant 4, 5

Advocate S R Srinivasa Murthy for plaintiff.