Danush case plaint THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction) Application No. of 2024 In C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. of 2024 Wunderbar Films Private Limited, Represented by its Director Mr. Sreyas Srinivasan,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
Application No. of 2024
In
C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. of 2024

Wunderbar Films Private Limited,
Represented by its Director Mr. Sreyas Srinivasan,
Having office at:
Amara Akasha No.5/1165, Flat No.12C,
12th Floor, East Facing, Rajiv Gandhi Road,
OMR, Perungudi, Chennai- 600 096. …Applicant/Plaintiff

-Vs-
1. Tarc Studios LLP,
Rep. by its Partner Mr. Gubendiran Vijayakumar,
No.9, Somasundaram Street,
T. Nagar, Chennai- 600 017.

2.M/s. Rowdy Pictures Private Limited,
Rep. by its Director Mr. Vigneshwar,
Having Office at:
No. A-902, Old No.2, New No.3,
Montieth Road, Egmore,
Chennai- 600 008.

3. Nayanthara Kurian,
W/o. Vignesh Shivan,
R/o. “The Atlantic Residences by Ceebros”
No.3, Red Cross Road,
Egmore, Chennai- 600 008.

4. Vignesh Shivan,
S/o. Sivakolundu,
R/o. “The Atlantic Residences by Ceebros”
No.3, Red Cross Road,
Egmore, Chennai- 600 008.

5. Los Gatos Production Services India LLP
(A unit of Netflix)
11th Floor, Godrej BKC, Plot C-68, G-Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex-Bandra East-400051. …Respondents/Defendants

AFFIDAVIT OF MR. SREYAS SRINIVASAN
I, Sreyas Srinivasan, the Director of the Applicant company, having office at Amara Akasha No.5/1165, Flat No.12C, 12th Floor, East Facing, Rajiv Gandhi Road, OMR, Perungudi, Chennai- 600 096, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:
1. I submit that I am the Director of the Applicant Company/Plaintiff company in the above suit and as such I am well aware of the facts and circumstances of the case. I crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to refer the plaint and affidavit filed in support of the injunction application for better appreciation of the facts and circumstances of this case.

2. I submit that the present suit is inter alia filed seeking an order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants their men, agents or anyone acting either through or on their behalf from in any manner infringing the Plaintiff’s copyright over the Cinematograph work “Naamum Rowdy Dhaan” including its Behind the Scenes Footage or any other Footage in connection with the said film or the making thereof and from broadcasting the same in the Documentary “Nayanthara: Beyond the Fairy Tale”.

3. I submit that the applicant is in the business of production of feature films, music videos, distribution of feature films, audio tracks, music videos etc. The film “Naanum Rowdy Dhaan” was produced by the applicant company, which was directed by the 4th respondent starring Mr. Vijay Sethupathi and the 3rd respondent as the lead actors of the movie. I submit that the services rendered by the artists/technicians/art directors and all other persons engaged by the applicant inclusive of the 3rd and the 4th respondents were on “works-made-for-hire” basis in accordance with the Copyright Act, 1957.

4. I submit that the Applicant and 3rd Respondent had executed the Artist agreement on 27.08.2014 within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court before shooting of the Cinematograph film, “Naanum Rowdy Dhaan” by which the 3rd respondent had agreed that the applicant is vested with all rights of every kind and character in perpetuity with regard to the 3rd Respondent’s performance appearance, likeness, name and/or voice (the Performance) in connection with the said film. Thereby granting ownership rights to the applicant for the photograph, videotape, film and record (on film tape or any other medium) etc. which is clearly reiterated in clause 4 of the agreement. In view of clause 4 of the Artist agreement, the applicant owns the Copyright over all the artists performance in connection with the cinematograph film meaning thereby that if any picture or video(footage) of the artist is captured as long as they are in their character on the set of the Cinematograph film the copyright over the same vests only with the applicant and of any person were to use such footage, they would require the applicant’s consent or license prior to using the same. The film “Naanum Rowdy Dhaan” was released on 21.10.2015 and performed well in the box office.

5. I submit that in such circumstances, to the utter shock and dismay of the applicant company, after nearly 10 years of the film being released and also the BTS visuals uploaded by the applicant company in their official YouTube channel, the respondents had included the “behind the scenes (BTS)” from the film Naanum Rowdy Dhaan in their documentary “Nayanthara: Beyond the Fairy Tale” trailer which was released on 09.11.2024 without obtaining prior permission and consent of the applicant thereby grossly infringing upon the applicant’s copyrights. Based on the said release of the trailer, I had issued a notice dated 09.11.2024 at 5.34pm via email to the 5th respondent. However, on 11.11.2024, the 1st and the 5th respondents through their counsel had replied to my email stating that the said “behind the scenes (BTS)” from the film Naanum Rowdy Dhaan is not owned by the applicant company as the same belonged to persons not commissioned by the applicant to shoot the behind-the-scenes footage and the same was personal in nature.

6. I submit that the behind-the-scenes footage was shot by the persons engaged by the applicant on work-on-hire-basis inclusive of the director of the movie “Naanum Rowdy Dhaan” who is the 4th respondent herein. The behind-the-scenes footage was uploaded in the official YouTube channel named “WUNDERBAR FILMS” on 22.10.2015. I submit that the Applicant had instructed their Counsel who had issued a legal Notice on behalf of the Applicant from their office at Montieth Road, Egmore Chennai to the 1st and 5th Respondent’s Counsel denying their claims and reiterating the Applicant’s ownership over the Copyright and called upon the Respondent’s to pay to the Applicant a sum of Rs.10 Crores towards damages in the event they fail to take down the infringed content.

7. I submit that the 5th Respondent on 15.11.2024 issued a letter to the Applicant informing them that the 1st Respondent had entered into a “Production Service Agreement” with them on hire basis and that they had informed them that they had license, permissions and title to include the content in the said document and should this Applicant have any objections to the same to take it up only with the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent is situated and carries on its business within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

8. I submit that the 3rd respondent thereafter uploaded a highly defamatory open letter in her Instagram page on 16.11.2024 addressed to Mr. K Dhanush who resides at Poes Garden Chennai and is the Founder of the applicant company, in which she had stated that for 2 years the 3rd respondent was requesting for an NOC for usage of “Naanum Rowdy Dhaan” songs or visual cuts, even the photographs, which was not granted. The 3rd respondent was aware of the fact that she should not use any visuals or video of the said movie be it off screen or on screen without the prior consent of the applicant company but had intentionally chosen to infringe upon the applicant’s copyrights which has caused irreparable loss to the applicant’s company as the said documentary was released on Netflix on 18.11.2024 worldwide, wherein the commercial impact was huge, causing loss to the applicant’s copyrights over the Cinematograph work. The said acts of the respondents clearly violate the copyrights of the applicant and as such the respondents have clearly breached into the applicant’s copyrights intentionally which is protected under the Copyright Act, 1957. Thus, in view of the said circumstances, I am approaching this Hon’ble Court on urgent basis, temporarily valuing the loss for infringement of copyrights at Rs.1,00,00,000/- and crave leave to substantiate the time at the time of trial.

9. The 5th Respondent in their letter dated 15.11.2024 had stated that any objections with regard to the content of the documentary which contains the infringed footage of the Applicant’s Copyrighted works can be taken up only with the 1st Respondent whose place of business is at No.9 Somasundram T.Nagar Chennai 600017 within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The 3rd and 4th Respondent reside within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The Applicant is asserting their both in respect its Copyright over the Cinematograph film as well as their rights under the Artist Agreement with the 3rd Respondent, since the likeness and appearance of her performance vests with the Applicant. The Artist Agreement was also executed within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The cause of action as elaborated in the Plaint and the facts as stated in this Application clearly disclose that the Cause of Action arises within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

10. It is submitted that only the 5th Respondent herein is located outside the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court it is necessary for the applicant to get a leave from this Hon’ble Court under Clause 12 of Letters Patent to sue them also within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the present application is allowed.

In the above circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant leave to the applicant to sue the 5th Respondent/Defendant within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Clause 12 of Letters Patent and pass such or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai Before Me
On this the 24th day of November, 2024
And signed his name in my presence.
Advocate: Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
Application No. of 2024
In
C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. of 2024

Wunderbar Films Private Limited
…Applicant/Plaintiff
Versus
Tarc Studios LLP & Ors.
…Respondents/Defendants

AFFIDAVIT OF MR. SREYAS SRINIVASAN

M/s. Gautam S. Raman
Maithreyi Canthasamy Sharma
Mohd Yaqoob Kafeel
R. Rebecca Vasanthini Percy
Nikhil Kumaresh
COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT
9940071160
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. of 2024
Wunderbar Films Private Limited,
Represented by its Director Mr. Sreyas Srinivasan,
Having office at:
Amara Akasha No.5/1165, Flat No.12C,
12th Floor, East Facing, Rajiv Gandhi Road,
OMR, Perungudi, Chennai- 600 096. …Plaintiff

-Vs-

1. Tarc Studios LLP,
Rep. by its Partner Mr. Gubendiran Vijayakumar,
No.9, Somasundaram Street,
T. Nagar, Chennai- 600 017.

2.M/s. Rowdy Pictures Private Limited,
Rep. by its Director Mr. Vigneshwar,
Having Office at:
No. A-902, Old No.2, New No.3,
Montieth Road, Egmore,
Chennai- 600 008.

3. Nayanthara Kurian,
W/o. Vignesh Shivan,
R/o. “The Atlantic Residences by Ceebros”
No.3, Red Cross Road,
Egmore, Chennai- 600 008.

4. Vignesh Shivan,
S/o. Sivakolundu,
R/o. “The Atlantic Residences by Ceebros”
No.3, Red Cross Road,
Egmore, Chennai- 600 008.

5. Los Gatos Production Services India LLP
(A unit of Netflix)
11th Floor, Godrej BKC, Plot C-68, G-Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex-Bandra East-400051. …Defendants

Application No. of 2024
In
C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. of 2024
Wunderbar Films Private Limited,
Represented by its Director Mr. Sreyas Srinivasan,
Having office at:
Amara Akasha No.5/1165, Flat No.12C,
12th Floor, East Facing, Rajiv Gandhi Road,
OMR, Perungudi, Chennai- 600 096. …Applicant/Plaintiff

-Vs-

1. Tarc Studios LLP,
Rep. by its Partner Mr. Gubendiran Vijayakumar,
No.9, Somasundaram Street,
T. Nagar, Chennai- 600 017.

2.M/s. Rowdy Pictures Private Limited,
Rep. by its Director Mr. Vigneshwar,
Having Office at:
No. A-902, Old No.2, New No.3,
Montieth Road, Egmore,
Chennai- 600 008.

3. Nayanthara Kurian,
W/o. Vignesh Shivan,
R/o. “The Atlantic Residences by Ceebros”
No.3, Red Cross Road,
Egmore, Chennai- 600 008.

4. Vignesh Shivan,
S/o. Sivakolundu,
R/o. “The Atlantic Residences by Ceebros”
No.3, Red Cross Road,
Egmore, Chennai- 600 008.

5. Los Gatos Production Services India LLP
(A unit of Netflix)
11th Floor, Godrej BKC, Plot C-68, G-Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex-Bandra East-400051. …Respondents/Defendants

JUDGES SUMMONS UNDER ORDER XIV RULE 8 OS RULE READ WITH ORDER III RULE 1 OF CPC AND CLAUSE 12 OF LETTERS PATENT ACT
Let the partied concerned do attend the Judges Court sitting at 10.30am on this day of _____ November, 2024 or so soon thereafter and the parties can be heard to show as to why?

A. This Hon’ble Court should not be pleased to treat this application as urgent?

B. This Hon’ble Court not be pleased to grant leave to sue the 5th respondent/defendant within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent;

C. Pass such further or other order(s), as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai on this the day of November, 2024.

Court Officer (OS)
This summon was taken out by Gautam S. Raman, Maithreyi Canthsamy Sharma, Mohd Yaqoob Kafeel, R. Rebecca Vasanthini Percy and Nikhil Kumaresh, Advocates at No.98A, Auras Corporate Centre, 4th Floor, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai- 600 004 and the affidavit of Mr. Sreyas Srinivasan is filed in support hereof.
Dated at Chennai on this the day of November, 2024.

Counsel for Applicant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
Application No. of 2024
In
C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. of 2024

Wunderbar Films Private Limited
…Applicant/Plaintiff
Versus
Tarc Studios LLP & Ors.
…Respondents/Defendants

JUDGES SUMMONS UNDER ORDER XIV RULE 8 OS RULE READ WITH ORDER III RULE 1 OF CPC AND CLAUSE 12 OF LETTERS PATENT ACT

M/s. Gautam S. Raman
Maithreyi Canthasamy Sharma
Mohd Yaqoob Kafeel
R. Rebecca Vasanthini Percy
Nikhil Kumaresh
COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT
9940071160