‘Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj’s name not a matter of exclusivity,’ Bombay HC clears October 31 release of Mahesh Manjrekar’s film

“In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no substantial reproduction of any of the copyright of the plaintiff (Everest Entertainment). Therefore, prima facie, there is no infringement of any of the copyrights of the plaintiff,” a vacation bench of Justice Amit S Jamsandekar noted in its order dated October 24, a copy of which was made available Wednesday.

Justice Jamsandekar said it was “difficult to accept that the audience of a Marathi film would consider the impugned film as a sequel to the plaintiff’s film”.

The judge added, “The well-informed and tasteful audience of Marathi films, prima facie, is not going to be confused or deceived by any of the factors alleged by the Plaintiff, including the title of the impugned film.”

The court also observed that the defendants rightly pointed out that theirs was not the first movie produced in the film industry by using the name “Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj” or “Shivajiraje Bhosale”. “In any case, the name of “Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj” in any form cannot be the subject matter of exclusivity,” the judge observed while rejecting Everest’s claim of exclusivity in the tile.

In 2009, they released Me Shivajiraje Bhosale Boltoy and, according to the applicant, Manjrekar assigned his IP rights to Everest, including the rights to produce prequels and sequels, thereby making the plaintiff the exclusive owner of those rights.

Everest added that in April this year, it found that Manjrekar and others were to produce a sequel to the 2009 film, after which it issued a caution notice to them to restrain themselves from infringing its rights.

After Manjrekar and others denied allegations, Everest approached the HC earlier this month with a plea argued through advocate Ravindra Suryawanshi, alleging that the official trailer of the new film would give a false impression to the public that it was a sequel to the 2009 film.

On October 17, the HC directed a private confidential screening of the new film for Everest Entertainment. However, Everest claimed that after the screening, it learned of more substantial similarities between the 2009 film and the new film and therefore would pursue the application.

On the other hand, advocate Harshad Bhadbhade, representing Manjrekar and other producers of the new film, denied any infringement.

The HC observed “delay on the part of plaintiff calculative,” and “nothing prevented plaintiff from making application well in advance”. The judge said the plaintiff chose not to take any action since April, and even in August, after the defendants replied to the caution notices. The court cited “gross and inordinate delay” as grounds for rejecting the ad interim plea.

The court also found that the form, manner, dialogue, storyline, and thought process behind the plots, characters, etc., by the defendant in the new film were “totally different” from those of the plaintiff.

Refusing ad interim relief, the HC also noted the “defendants’ work is not a literal imitation” and the film produced by Manjrekar and others was “an entirely new work”, therefore, “prima facie, the plaintiff failed to make out any case of copyright infringement or passing off”.

The HC posted the final hearing on the interim application next month.