Bombay High Court Dismissed an Ad-Interim Application Alleging the Copyright Infringement by Netflix

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

In Sameer Wadekar & Another v. Netflix Entertainment Services Pvt. Ltd.the plaintiff filed a suit for copyright infringement of his original work ‘Vetaal’. The infringement was alleged against the release of Netflix series ‘Betaal’. As a result, the plaintiff requested to put a restrain on the release of ‘Betaal’.

Facts of a case

The plaintiff filed an application for copyright infringement of his literary work ‘Vetaal’. The plaintiff claimed that the upcoming Netflix series ‘Betaal’ is a copy of his work ‘Vetaal’. Thus, the plaintiff sought the Court to put stay on the release of a series.

Plaintiff’s Argument

The plaintiffs, Sameer Wadekar and Mahesh Goswami contended that he wrote ‘Vetaal’ in 2013-14. He got it registered in 2015 at copyright office in Delhi. They also registered with the Screen Writers Association in 2018. The plaintiff claimed that he had watched the trailer of a series on YouTube. After watching, he found at least 13 similarities with his work.

Mr Viraj Kadam is the counsel on behalf of the plaintiff. He submitted that the ‘Vetaal’ movie was an original work of plaintiff. The plaintiff created a story on his imagination. His imagination included characters, props and location, etc. of a film. The plaintiff claimed that this was a case of plagiarism and copyright infringement.

Defendant’s Submission

The defendant claimed that the series ‘Betaal’ is an original work of defendants. There was no similarity between the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s work. The defendants also submitted that the news about ‘Betaal’ had published in June 2019. The news was published at various sites available at public domain. Moreover, these publications also contained a description of the story of the series.

Court’s Analysis

The justice asked the plaintiff how it was possible for the defendant no. 3 (author) to know about the story of the plaintiff’s original work. The plaintiff stated that the plaintiff had shared his work with many producers. Wilson Louis was one of them. The plaintiff relied on the mails in which Wilson noted that he wanted to make the film happen. Wilson also had contacts in Netflix. But the Court stated that e-mails did not prove that there is a contact between Wilson and the defendant. Thus, it is not possible that the original work of the plaintiff can be copied by anyone else.

The Court said that the availability of information about the series story favoured the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff’s claim that he was not aware of publications has no relevance.

The Court also stated that the word ‘Betaal’ has originated from the word ‘Vetalam’. It is a word related to Hindu Mythology. The story of the series is also based on a tale relevant in Hindu Mythology.

Court’s Decision

The Bench led by Justice K.R. Shriram dismissed the appeal. The Court also asked Mr Kadam to amend the plaint to include claims and damages. Further, the Court granted a period of 8 weeks to file the written statement.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -