India’s Screenwriters Association & Composers Association sign fair credit deal ensuring equal recognition between lyricists & composers
The Music Composers Association of India (MCAI) and the Screenwriters Association (SWA) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to enhance collaboration between music composers, lyricists, and screenwriters. This agreement emphasizes that music directors and lyricists are equal co-authors and should be credited as primary artists. The MoU aims to foster mutual respect in credit-sharing and promote a more structured approach to creative collaboration in Indian cinema and television. Furthermore, the MoU mandates separate contracts between producers and lyricists, enabling both parties to negotiate independently as departmental heads, strengthening their professional standing.
Read more about it here.
Tollywood producer Dil Raju gets temporary relief in ‘Mr Perfect’ copyright case
Producer Dil Raju has secured temporary relief from the Supreme Court in the copyright case concerning his 2011 film “Mr. Perfect.” In 2017, writer Mummudi Syamala Devi alleged that the film plagiarized her novel “Naa Manasu Ninnu Kore,” leading to a City Civil Court ruling against Dil Raju. Challenging this decision, he approached the Supreme Court, which has now issued a stay on the lower court’s order, postponing further proceedings for two weeks.
Read more about it here.
‘CBFC equipped to perform its duty’: Madras High Court dismisses plea asking CBFC not to certify “Bad Girl” movie
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by the Rashtriya Sanadhana Seva Sangam, which sought to prevent the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) from certifying the upcoming Tamil film “Bad Girl.” The petitioner expressed concerns over the film’s portrayal of a Brahmin girl, deeming it offensive. During the hearing, Mr. R. Rajesh Vivekananthan, the Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, submitted that “as of today, no such movie or application for censorship has been received. Therefore, the petitioner’s prayer cannot be countenanced at this stage.” The court highlighted the CBFC’s competence in fulfilling its statutory duties, stating, “Even otherwise, the Censor Board is equipped to perform its duty and will consider the application in accordance with the law.”
Read the order here.
Laxman Utekar apologizes as Chhaava faces ₹100 crore defamation suit threat from Shirke descendants
The historical drama “Chhaava,” directed by Laxman Utekar and starring Vicky Kaushal, has encountered controversy due to its portrayal of Maratha warriors Ganoji and Kanhoji Shirke as traitors who allegedly betrayed Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj. Descendants of the Shirke family, notably Deepak Raje Shirke, have criticized this depiction as historically inaccurate and damaging to their family’s reputation. They have threatened a ₹100 crore defamation lawsuit and potential statewide protests if corrections are not made. In response, director Laxman Utekar issued a public apology, clarifying that the film intentionally omitted the surnames and village names of Ganoji and Kanhoji to avoid direct association. He stated, “We have only mentioned the names of Ganoji and Kanhoji in ‘Chhaava’ without referring to their surname. We’ve also made sure to not disclose the village they belonged to. Our intention was not to hurt the sentiments of the Shirke family. I sincerely apologise if ‘Chhaava’ caused any discomfort.”
Read more about it here.
Delhi High Court Dismisses LawSikho’s Defamation Suit, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a defamation suit filed by Addictive Learning Technology Limited, operating as LawSikho, against individuals who criticized its courses on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter). The Court not only rejected the case but also imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on LawSikho for failing to disclose the full context of the conversation.
The dispute stemmed from an exchange on X regarding the quality of legal education at National Law Universities (NLUs) and the courses offered by LawSikho. LawSikho’s representative, Ramanuj Mukherjee, initiated the conversation with a tweet, to which advocates Aditya Garg, Ashish Goel, and others responded critically. LawSikho claimed that these critical tweets could harm its business and affect its share value, leading to the defamation suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, presiding over the case, emphasized that tweets forming part of a conversational thread cannot be assessed in isolation. The Court highlighted the casual, fast-paced, and impressionistic nature of the platform, stating that a detailed legal analysis of a short tweet would be disproportionate. The Court further noted that Mukherjee himself had provoked the debate and must “maintain the proverbial thick skin.”
Consequently, the Court directed LawSikho to deposit ₹1 lakh with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks. This case underscores the importance of context in online conversations and the challenges of applying traditional defamation principles to social media interactions.
Read the order here.
Kamaal R Khan Moves Bombay High Court to Quash 2017 FIR Over Tweet on Dhanush
Kamaal R Khan (KRK) has moved the Bombay High Court seeking to quash a 2017 FIR filed against him for a tweet about Tamil actor Dhanush. The FIR, registered under IPC Section 509, alleges that KRK’s tweet, which included an objectionable remark and an image, insulted Dhanush.
KRK, represented by advocate Sana Raees Khan, argues that the complaint was filed by a non-aggrieved party and lacks merit. He also claims he was unaware of the FIR until 2020 and highlights the absence of a charge sheet even after seven years. Additionally, he contends that his tweet, though inappropriate, falls under free speech protection. The court is expected to hear the matter soon.
Read more about it here.
Delhi High Court Awards INR 339.25 Crore in Damages Against Amazon for Trademark Infringement of Beverly Hills Polo Club
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction against Amazon Technologies, Inc. for trademark infringement of Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) and awarded INR 339.25 crore (approximately $39 million) in damages to the plaintiffs, Lifestyle Equities CV & Lifestyle Licensing BV. The court found that Amazon’s private label, Symbol, used a deceptively similar horse and polo player logo, misleading consumers and diluting BHPC’s brand value. Amazon Technologies was held liable as the brand owner, while its licensee, Cloudtail India, had previously been ordered to pay ₹4.78 lakh in damages. The judgment highlights the increasing scrutiny on “e-infringement” and reinforces stringent trademark protections in digital commerce.
Read order here.
Delhi High Court Rejects Zee Entertainment’s Bid to Introduce Additional Evidence in Copyright Suit Against Saregama
In Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. Saregama India Ltd., the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Amit Bansal, dismissed Zee Entertainment’s application to place additional documents on record in an ongoing copyright infringement suit. Zee sought to introduce secondary evidence to support its claim of ownership over sound recordings in 29 cinematograph films. However, the court found that Zee had delayed its request for over seven years and failed to demonstrate due diligence in obtaining the original documents or proving their unavailability.
The court emphasized that commercial suits require strict adherence to procedural timelines and rejected Zee’s argument that the COVID-19 pandemic caused the delay. It held that allowing such filings at this stage would undermine the efficiency of commercial litigation. Zee was ordered to pay INR 25,000 in costs to Saregama. The case will next be heard before the Joint Registrar on April 9, 2025.
Read order here
