Plea against Zee Entertainment: IPR cases moved before courts at eleventh hour unfair to other litigants, says Bombay HC
The Plex, through senior counsel Virag Tulzapurkar, had sought an injunction against Zee Entertainment seeking damages for misleading the consumers to believe that Zee had tied up with Plex.
Through advocate Vicky Nagrani, the petitioners sought limited relief to permit them to appear for exams as they are held once every four years. (File)
The Bombay High Court recently said it was unfair to other litigants when cases concerning intellectual property rights (IPR) are moved before courts at the “eleventh hour” against the release of a movie and seek to impose on the court’s time.
A single judge bench of Justice Gautam S Patel made these observations on October 1 while refusing relief to Plex Inc, which sought restraining orders against Zee Entertainment from using the word “plex” in its ZEEPLEX online movie service channel.
You’ve Read Your Free Stories For Now
Sign up and keep reading more stories that matter to you.
The Plex, through senior counsel Virag Tulzapurkar, had sought an injunction against Zee Entertainment seeking damages for misleading the consumers to believe that Zee had tied up with Plex.
Senior advocate Janak Dwarkadas, appearing for Zee, said his client used ‘Zee’ as a prefix, which it would invariably use for all their other offerings and marks. He said ‘plex’ was used to point to the niche or specialised service, which his client was offering to subscribers on pay-per-view basis.
The court noted that there was a question of time lost between September 1 and October 1 and in any action that seeks such urgent reliefs — given that Zee was planning to launch its product on October 2 — this factor could not be ignored.
Tulzapurkar, however, said there was no delay and a suit had been filed within the shortest possible time.
Justice Patel said, “I do believe and maintain that parties in IPR matters cannot expect courts to push aside all other cases. This happens repeatedly, whether it is movie releases or otherwise. It must stop. It is unfair to courts and it is unfair to other litigants waiting their turn.”
Story continues below this ad
The court said that when the plaintiff had enough notice and yet chooses to move court at the “eleventh hour” and makes no adjustments, the plaintiff must be prepared to face the consequences.
The judge said he was not refusing ad-interim relief to Plex on the ground of “delay”, but because the grant of injunction to Plex would cause immediate financial loss to Zee. The court said the use of the word ‘plex’ was subject to further orders since the current order was for the limited purpose of deciding on a plea seeking to restrain Zee Entertainment’s use of the word for its online movie channel service.
Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions.
Expertise & Authority
Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage.
Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in:
Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include:
Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes).
Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty).
Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict.
Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability.
Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges.
Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More
