Delhi HC Questions Trimurti Films Over Not Pursuing 2016 'Oye Oye' Copyright Row During Plea Against Dhurandhar 2

The Delhi High Court on Friday sharply questioned Trimurti Films on Friday over its nearly decade-long inaction after objecting in 2016 to the same alleged copyright infringement, asking why it had kept quiet for years before seeking to restrain the OTT release of Dhurandhar: The Revenge over the use of the iconic Tridev song Oye Oye.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was openly skeptical of the plaintiff's case and remarked, “In spite of sending a notice in 2016 in respect of Azhar, you are keeping quiet thereafter. Does it come in your favour?”

The court was equally unconvinced by Trimurti's explanation for not disclosing T-Series' response to that notice, remarking, “We are being very candid with you, doesn't seem to be at all convincing to even half a percent of it.”

In the earlier hearings, the court had suggested that the parties explore mediation. After those efforts failed, the matter was listed on Friday for consideration of Trimurti's plea for interim relief against the OTT release of Dhurandhar: The Revenge.

Trimurti Films, producer of the 1989 blockbuster Tridev, has sued B62 Studios, the production house behind Dhurandhar: The Revenge, and T-Series, alleging that the iconic Oye Oye track has been unlawfully adapted as Rang De Lal without authorisation.

While the film has already released in theatres, the immediate dispute concerns its digital release.

Appearing for Trimurti, Senior Advocate Swati Sukumar first addressed the defendants' allegation that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts by failing to disclose a 2016 legal notice and the subsequent response concerning Azhar, another film that used the same song.

She argued that there could be no suppression where the document was already in the defendant's possession and that suppression required deliberate concealment.

However, when she said the plaintiff's managing director had not received T-Series' response because he was abroad at the time, the court questioned whether a litigant could disclaim knowledge of correspondence received by its own lawyers.

Sukumar ultimately conceded that Trimurti may now be unable to pursue claims relating to Azhar, saying it may be non-suited in relation to that film, but argued that this could not defeat a fresh copyright cause of action arising from Dhurandhar. She submitted that acquiescence is a statutory defence under trademark law, not copyright law.

On the merits, Sukumar argued that the 1988 agreement with T-Series was a limited assignment permitting only manufacture and sale of physical sound recordings linked to Tridev and specifically did not authorise use of the music in any other cinematographic film.

To support this, she relied on correspondence exchanged after the agreement in which T-Series referred to Tridev as “your film” and the songs as “your songs,” arguing that this contradicted its present stand that Trimurti had fully assigned away all rights.

Senior Counsel Akhil Sibal, appearing for T-Series, rejected that interpretation and argued that the 1988 agreement transferred all rights in perpetuity, including future modes of exploitation.

He described the plaintiff's interpretation as “bizarre and unbelievable and self-serving,” and said a proper reading of the clauses would show that T-Series became the owner of all rights.

Sibal also questioned the logic of restraining only the OTT release when the film is already running in cinemas. “Won't it be incongruous to say that yes, so far as the movie is concerned, it can still go on, however when it comes to OTT, we don't have these three minutes there?” he argued.

The matter remains part-heard, with Sibal's submissions to continue on the next date of hearing.