Sameer Wadekar & Anr. vs. Netflix Entertainment Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors: Trademark Infringement Case

Sameer Wadekar & Anr. vs. Netflix Entertainment Services Pvt.  Ltd. &  Ors: Trademark Infringement Case. Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Case Number: LD-VC Interim Application Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of 2020
Date of Order: 22nd May 2020
Judge: Hon’ble Justice K.R. Shriram
Facts of the Case
1. Parties Involved:
-Plaintiffs: Sameer Wadekar and another individual, who are writers and members of the Screen Writers Association.
-Defendants:

Netflix Entertainment Services Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No. 1 – distributor).

Producers and other individuals associated with the web series "Betaal" (Defendant Nos. 2 to 4).

2. Background:
-The plaintiff claimed to have created and registered a fictional story titled Vetaal in 2015 with the Screen Writers Association.
-On 7th May 2020, the plaintiff came across a YouTube trailer for Netflix’s web series Betaal, which allegedly bore 13 similarities with Vetaal.
-The web series Betaal was set to be released worldwide on 24th May 2020.
-The plaintiff alleged trademark infringement of copyright and plagiarism, arguing that the defendants unlawfully reproduced significant elements of Vetaal.
3. Claims by Plaintiffs:
-The plaintiff alleged that his story was original and fictional, created with unique characters, settings, and narrative elements.
-He asserted that he had shared the copyrighted work with various producers since 2015, including a filmmaker named Wilson Louis, who reportedly had connections with Netflix.
Defendants’ Defense
1. Originality:
-The defendants argued that the concept of "Betaal" originated from the mythological Vetalam tales in Hindu mythology, making it a part of public domain knowledge.
2. Public Domain:
-The defendants produced evidence, including print and online publications from July 2019, detailing the storyline of Betaal.
-They asserted that the plaintiff failed to establish a direct link between his copyrighted work and the creation of Betaal.
3. Delay:
-The defendants emphasized that information about Betaal had been in the public domain since 2019, and the plaintiff’s claim of being unaware of it lacked merit.
Issues
1. Did the defendants infringe upon the plaintiff’s copyright in Vetaal?
2. Was the plaintiff entitled to an interim injunction restraining the release of Betaal?
Court’s Observations
1. Lack of Evidence of Copying:
-The court noted that while the plaintiff alleged similarities between Vetaal and Betaal, there was no concrete evidence to prove that the defendants had access to or copied the plaintiff’s work.
-The plaintiff’s reliance on emails exchanged with Wilson Louis did not establish any connection between the defendants and the plaintiff’s story.
2. Public Domain Knowledge:
-The court acknowledged that the term "Betaal" (derived from Vetalam) and its associated characteristics were part of Hindu mythology, diminishing the claim of originality.
3. Delay and Laches:
-The court found that the plaintiff’s claim was filed too late, as information about Betaal had been publicly available since mid-2019.
4. Rejection of Interim Relief:
-Given the lack of evidence and the delay in filing the suit, the court refused to grant an interim injunction against the release of Betaal.
Judgment
-The court dismissed the interim application filed by the plaintiffs.
-The plaintiffs were granted liberty to amend the plaint to include claims for damages.
Key Takeaways
-The case underscores the importance of demonstrating a clear connection between the alleged infringement and the plaintiff’s work in copyright disputes.
-Claims based on public domain concepts require substantial originality to establish infringement.
-Courts are unlikely to grant interim relief in cases where there is an undue delay in raising claims.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction

Case Number: LD-VC Interim Application Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of 2020

Date of Order: 22nd May 2020

Judge: Hon’ble Justice K.R. Shriram

Facts of the Case

1. Parties Involved:

-Plaintiffs: Sameer Wadekar and another individual, who are writers and members of the Screen Writers Association.

-Defendants:

Netflix Entertainment Services Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No. 1 – distributor).
Producers and other individuals associated with the web series "Betaal" (Defendant Nos. 2 to 4).

2. Background:

-The plaintiff claimed to have created and registered a fictional story titled Vetaal in 2015 with the Screen Writers Association.

-On 7th May 2020, the plaintiff came across a YouTube trailer for Netflix’s web series Betaal, which allegedly bore 13 similarities with Vetaal.

-The web series Betaal was set to be released worldwide on 24th May 2020.

-The plaintiff alleged trademark infringement of copyright and plagiarism, arguing that the defendants unlawfully reproduced significant elements of Vetaal.

3. Claims by Plaintiffs:

-The plaintiff alleged that his story was original and fictional, created with unique characters, settings, and narrative elements.

-He asserted that he had shared the copyrighted work with various producers since 2015, including a filmmaker named Wilson Louis, who reportedly had connections with Netflix.

Defendants’ Defense

1. Originality:

-The defendants argued that the concept of "Betaal" originated from the mythological Vetalam tales in Hindu mythology, making it a part of public domain knowledge.

2. Public Domain:

-The defendants produced evidence, including print and online publications from July 2019, detailing the storyline of Betaal.

-They asserted that the plaintiff failed to establish a direct link between his copyrighted work and the creation of Betaal.

3. Delay:

-The defendants emphasized that information about Betaal had been in the public domain since 2019, and the plaintiff’s claim of being unaware of it lacked merit.

Issues

1. Did the defendants infringe upon the plaintiff’s copyright in Vetaal?

2. Was the plaintiff entitled to an interim injunction restraining the release of Betaal?

Court’s Observations

1. Lack of Evidence of Copying:

-The court noted that while the plaintiff alleged similarities between Vetaal and Betaal, there was no concrete evidence to prove that the defendants had access to or copied the plaintiff’s work.

-The plaintiff’s reliance on emails exchanged with Wilson Louis did not establish any connection between the defendants and the plaintiff’s story.

2. Public Domain Knowledge:

-The court acknowledged that the term "Betaal" (derived from Vetalam) and its associated characteristics were part of Hindu mythology, diminishing the claim of originality.

3. Delay and Laches:

-The court found that the plaintiff’s claim was filed too late, as information about Betaal had been publicly available since mid-2019.

4. Rejection of Interim Relief:

-Given the lack of evidence and the delay in filing the suit, the court refused to grant an interim injunction against the release of Betaal.

Judgment

-The court dismissed the interim application filed by the plaintiffs.

-The plaintiffs were granted liberty to amend the plaint to include claims for damages.

Key Takeaways

-The case underscores the importance of demonstrating a clear connection between the alleged infringement and the plaintiff’s work in copyright disputes.

-Claims based on public domain concepts require substantial originality to establish infringement.

-Courts are unlikely to grant interim relief in cases where there is an undue delay in raising claims.