A plea was filed before the Delhi High Court recently by Pocket FM Pvt. Ltd. against Novi Digital Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (Parent Company of Disney + Hotstar) requesting a temporary injunction on the release of alleged video series "Yakshini", which as per Plaintiff is the unauthorized video adaptation of the audio series "Yakshini", available on Pocket FM. Hence, the show is infringing their copyright, plaintiff alleged.
Background
Pocket FM Pvt. Ltd., the Plaintiff, is an audio books & audio series platform and is the exclusive owner of the rights to the work "Yakshini". This series is a hit show on their platform, having debuted on May 30, 2021.
The parent company of Disney + Hotstar, Novi Digital Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., the Defendant, was seeking permission from Plaintiff to transform the audio series into a video series, in 2022 they started negotiations that eventually fell through. Proprietary information was shared, but despite plaintiff's request, no non-disclosure agreement was signed. Rather, defendant was released from any liability with regard to the content disclosed during the discussions by signing a "release form."
The Plaintiff came across a trailer for the TV show "Yakshini" on the website and "Disney+Hotstar" YouTube channel of Defendant, which was set to debut on Hotstar on June 14, 2024.
In order to stop the Defendants from releasing, marketing, or selling "Yakshini"-TV show, which they contend is strikingly similar to their own audio series of the same name, the Plaintiff, sought a temporary injunction. Additionally, they requested that the Defendant remove the contested trailer video from their website.
Plaintiff's Submissions
The Plaintiff claims that the Respondent's TV series "Yakshini" closely mirrors their audio series of the same name. Both feature a female supernatural Yakshini who emerges from another realm, is cursed to seduce and kill men, and falls in love with a male protagonist whom she must kill to return to her realm. Both also include an Aghori seeking the Yakshini's powers and depict the Yakshini and Aghoris as worshipers of Lord Shiva. Comments from third-party sources and the Defendant's website suggest significant similarities. The Plaintiff also alleged that confidential discussions and an unsigned non-disclosure agreement indicate the Defendant might have misused their content. They have submitted a trademark application for "Yakshini" seeking damages of Rs. 2,00,01,000. The Plaintiff argues that without an injunction, they face severe financial hardship, while the Defendant's OTT release will not be significantly affected.
Defendant's Arguments
The Defendant argued that they announced the series on the platform X on May 10, 2024, with a trailer released on May 27, 2024, and the premiere was scheduled for June 13, 2024. They contended that the Plaintiff's delay in taking action, despite adequate notice, suggests malice intention. They also noted that "Yakshini" is a legendary figure appearing in various cultural works, making the Plaintiff's claim unfounded. Additionally, the Plaintiff's copyright claim was undermined by a "Release Form" they signed, waiving rights to previously submitted works. The Defendants argued that since only specific adaptations, not ideas, are copyrightable, an injunction at this stage would be unjustly harmful. Thus, there is insufficient basis for granting an injunction before publication.
Court's Decision
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, vacation judge, June 13, 2024, found, the Plaintiff's claim of discovering the series in early June dubious. Since the release was imminent, granting an injunction without substantial proof of infringement would be unjust. The Court relied on a decision by Justice Hari Shankar in Dashrath D. Rathore, I.A.(2020), in which last-minute pre-release injunctions were found to be unjustified.
The Court applied the tests laid down in the landmark judgement of R.G. Anand vs. Delux Films & Ors.(1978), where it was established that copyright does not cover ideas or themes but rather their precise expression.
With "Yakshini" being a legendary character that appears in a number of literary works and civilizations, the court found insufficient evidence that the Defendants' series closely resembles the Plaintiff's output. The Plaintiff's delay and lack of prima facie evidence did not justify an injunction. Despite the Plaintiff's previous submission of works and signing a Release Form, there was no clear evidence of copyright infringement. If later infringement is discovered, financial compensation may be granted.
Analysis
This case highlights the complexities of copyright protection for works involving widely recognized mythological elements. The court underscored the need to distinguish between protecting specific expressions and general ideas, emphasizing the idea-expression dichotomy. It reaffirmed that while unique adaptations can be copyrighted, common mythological figures are part of the public domain and cannot be monopolized. This decision reflects a careful balance between safeguarding original works and preventing the undue restriction of shared cultural themes. It also illustrates the court's cautious approach to late-stage injunction requests, requiring substantial proof of infringement. For creators, the case reinforces the importance of originality when dealing with mythological content and sets a precedent for future disputes involving similar themes. Overall, the ruling supports innovation while ensuring that culturally significant content remains accessible, highlighting the crucial role of evidence and timing in intellectual property litigation.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.