The dispute concerns a copyright dispute concerning behind-the-scenes (BTS) footage from the Tamil film Naanum Rowdy Dhaan. The plaintiff, Los Gatos Production Services India LLP (a unit of Netflix), alleged that the defendants, particularly Wunderbar Films Pvt. Ltd. and its associated parties, had unlawfully used BTS footage from the film in the Netflix documentary “Nayanthara: Beyond the Fairy Tale.” The defendants sought to have the suit dismissed, arguing lack of jurisdiction and non-compliance with procedural requirements.
Netflix, the plaintiff, filed the suit under Section 62 of the Copyright Act, claiming that it had exclusive rights over the BTS footage, which was allegedly used in the documentary without proper authorisation. The plaintiff contended that the documentary was released on November 18, 2024, on Netflix and YouTube and that it contained BTS clips from Naanum Rowdy Dhaan, violating copyright law. The dispute became public when the film’s lead actress, Nayanthara, addressed the controversy in an open letter posted on social media. The plaintiff further asserted that this unauthorised use of the BTS footage violated its intellectual property rights and misrepresented the creative ownership of the content.
The defendants, including Wunderbar Films, Tarc Studios LLP, Rowdy Pictures Pvt. Ltd., actress Nayanthara, and director Vignesh Shivan, argued that the suit was not maintainable in the Madras High Court. They sought the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, arguing that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. They contended that Netflix’s office was in Mumbai and that the plaintiff’s claim of jurisdiction under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was an improper attempt to forum-shop. Furthermore, they argued that the plaintiff had not complied with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, which mandates pre-suit mediation for commercial disputes.
Netflix countered by stating that a significant part of the cause of action did, in fact, arise in Chennai. The production of Naanum Rowdy Dhaan, including its filming and contractual agreements with artists, occurred in Chennai. The plaintiff further emphasised that the film’s artist agreement with Nayanthara was executed in Chennai, reinforcing its argument that the cause of action originated there. Additionally, Netflix argued that the release of the infringing documentary was global, including in Chennai, which further established jurisdiction. They also contended that the suit was filed urgently because the alleged copyright infringement was ongoing, necessitating immediate judicial intervention. They claimed this justified bypassing the mandatory pre-suit mediation under the Commercial Courts Act.
The Madras High Court examined both jurisdictional and substantive issues. The court noted that while the plaintiff’s registered office was outside Chennai, significant contractual obligations and business dealings related to the disputed BTS footage had taken place in Chennai. The court also considered the fact that all defendants, except Netflix, were based in Chennai and that the documentary was accessible within the city. It ruled that under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the High Court had the authority to grant leave for the suit to be entertained in Chennai. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that filing under Section 62 of the Copyright Act automatically excluded the jurisdictional provisions under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
Regarding the argument about pre-suit mediation, the court held that the urgency of the matter justified the plaintiff’s decision to file suit without undergoing mediation. Since the documentary was already streaming and allegedly infringing content was being viewed widely, the court agreed that immediate legal action was warranted to prevent further damage. The court also referenced Supreme Court and High Court precedents, which supported the stance that intellectual property disputes, particularly those involving ongoing infringement, could bypass pre-suit mediation requirements in cases of urgency.
In light of these findings, the court dismissed both applications filed by the defendants, thereby upholding its jurisdiction over the case and allowing Netflix’s suit to proceed. The court emphasised that its ruling was limited to the preliminary objections raised by the defendants and did not adjudicate on the substantive copyright infringement claims, which would be determined in the course of the main proceedings.
This case highlights the complexities of copyright disputes in the digital age, where content ownership and distribution span multiple jurisdictions. It also highlights the evolving legal landscape concerning intellectual property rights enforcement in India, particularly in the entertainment industry. The judgment reasserts that courts must balance procedural technicalities with the need for expeditious relief in cases where intellectual property rights are at risk of immediate harm.