Delhi Court Dismisses Producer's Copyright Suit Over Main Nashe Main Hoon, Other Films Against YouTube Channels

A Delhi commercial court has dismissed a copyright infringement suit filed by film producer Rishi Raj over alleged unauthorised streaming of films including Vairi, Kanch Ki Diwaar, Laajo, Main Nashe Main Hoon and Ankh Ka Tara. The films were allegedly streamed on YouTube channels run by Chandigarh-based Gaurav Trehan.

District Judge Anil Kumar Sisodia of the Tis Hazari Courts, in a judgment delivered on May 4, held that Raj had failed to prove infringement with admissible evidence.

“The mere fact that defendants did not contest the suit, would not in itself be sufficient to exonerate the plaintiff from proving its case by preponderance of probabilities,” the court held.

Raj, proprietor of Raj Rishi Films, claimed that he held copyright and exploitation rights in multiple Hindi films under agreements executed with their respective owners between 1992 and 2019.

He alleged that Trehan, operating through Catrack Worldwide and 21st Century Production, had illegally telecast the films and their songs on YouTube channels including “21st Century Production”, “Catrack Worldwide”, “Catrack Entertainment” and “Catrack Movies” without authorisation.

Though the defendants were served through WhatsApp and email, they failed to appear. The court proceeded against them ex parte.

The court accepted Raj's ownership claims in respect of Vairi, Kanch Ki Diwaar, Laajo, Main Nashe Main Hoon, Ankh Ka Tara and Sati Aur Bhagwan. These findings were based on the agreements placed on record.

However, it held that Raj failed to establish ownership rights in Maryada, Kasauti, and Kali Topi Lal Rumal. The original agreements relating to those films were not produced.

On the allegation of infringement, the court found that the principal evidence relied upon by Raj were screenshots purportedly showing the films being streamed on the defendants' YouTube channels.

Since no certificate authenticating the electronic evidence was filed, the screenshots were held inadmissible. The court noted that apart from these screenshots, no oral or documentary evidence had been produced to prove infringement.

The suit seeking injunction and rendition of accounts was accordingly dismissed.