Doctrine of Election and Jurisdiction of Court
Introduction:The case Los Gatos Production Services India LLP vs. Wunderbar Films Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. revolves around copyright infringement allegations concerning behind-the-scenes footage from the Tamil film "Naanum Rowdy Dhaan". The Plaintiff, Los Gatos Production Services India LLP (a Netflix unit), filed a suit against Wunderbar Films Pvt. Ltd. and others, alleging that a Netflix documentary titled "Nayanthara: Beyond the Fairytale" incorporated unauthorized footage from the film.
Two key applications were filed by the fifth Defendant, Vignesh Shivan: Application No. 6748 of 2024 – Seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.Application No. 6750 of 2024 – Seeking revocation of leave to sue granted by the Madras High Court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
Key Allegations by Plaintiff: Unauthorized Use of Footage:The Netflix documentary "Nayanthara: Beyond the Fairytale" allegedly used behind-the-scenes (BTS) clips from "Naanum Rowdy Dhaan" without permission. Plaintiff claims copyright over the footage. Plaintiff’s Actions Prior to Filing Suit:Discovered the alleged infringement on November 9, 2024 via YouTube.Sent a legal notice on November 9, 2024 to Netflix.Netflix responded on November 11, 2024, denying infringement.The documentary was released on Netflix on November 18, 2024.Plaintiff filed the suit on November 24, 2024, seeking urgent interim reliefs. Jurisdiction and Cause of Action:Plaintiff claimed major parts of the cause of action arose in Chennai:The film "Naanum Rowdy Dhaan" was produced and released in Chennai.The Artist Agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was executed in Chennai.The disputed footage was filmed in Chennai.Plaintiff sought leave to sue under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
Defendant’s Arguments:The fifth Defendant, Vignesh Shivan, sought rejection of the plaint and revocation of leave to sue, raising the following objections: Lack of Jurisdiction:Argued that Netflix (Plaintiff) has no office in Chennai, so the Madras High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction.Claimed that no part of the cause of action arose in Chennai since Netflix operates from Mumbai. Doctrine of Election:Since the Plaintiff invoked Section 62 of the Copyright Act, which allows a suit to be filed where the Plaintiff resides or carries on business, they could not also invoke Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.Non-Compliance with Pre-Suit Mediation (Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015):The Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff should have first attempted mediation before filing a suit.The cause of action allegedly arose in 2020, yet the suit was filed only in 2024. No Copyright Violation:Defendant argued that the Plaintiff did not produce the footage, so they could not claim copyright.Invoked Section 16 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which bars infringement suits unless copyright is legally registered.
Plaintiff’s Arguments:The Plaintiff opposed both applications, stating:Jurisdiction is Proper:The major cause of action arose in Chennai.The film "Naanum Rowdy Dhaan" was produced, filmed, and released in Chennai.The Artist Agreement with the Defendants was executed in Chennai.Doctrine of Election Does Not Apply:Plaintiff argued that Clause 12 of the Letters Patent provides an additional remedy beyond Section 62 of the Copyright Act.The Court had discretion to allow jurisdiction.Urgency Justified Pre-Suit Mediation Exemption:The infringement became known only on November 9, 2024.The documentary was released on November 18, 2024, forcing an urgent legal response.
Discussion on Judgments & Cited Cases:The Court analyzed several precedents:Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia & Another:(2015) 10 SCC 161:Established that Section 62 of the Copyright Act does not override Section 20 of CPC.Plaintiff can file suits in multiple jurisdictions if cause of action arises in multiple places.Applied here to validate Plaintiff’s jurisdiction claim.Nagubai Ammal & Others v. B. Shama Rao & Others:AIR 1956 SC 593:Discussed Doctrine of Election, holding that if a party chooses one remedy, they cannot later switch to another.The Court held Doctrine of Election did not apply since the Plaintiff had invoked both remedies in a single suit.T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Another (1977) 4 SCC 467: Court ruled that plaintiffs cannot file suits based on frivolous or illusory causes of action.Defendant argued the Plaintiff was forum shopping, but the Court rejected this claim.Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi 2024 (5) SCC 815 Pre-suit mediation is not mandatory in urgent cases. Applied to reject the Defendant’s argument about non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.
Reasoning of the Judge: Justice Abdul Quddhose rejected both applications, reasoning:Jurisdiction Is Proper:Major cause of action occurred in Chennai.The film, agreement, and alleged infringement were all linked to Chennai.Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is an Additional Remedy:The Doctrine of Election does not bar the Plaintiff from invoking both Section 62 and Clause 12. Pre-Suit Mediation Was Not Required:The urgency of the case justified bypassing mediation.No Ground to Reject the Plaint:The Defendant failed to prove the suit was frivolous.
Decision:Application No. 6748 of 2024 (Rejection of Plaint) – Dismissed.2. Application No. 6750 of 2024 (Revocation of Leave to Sue) – Dismissed. Suit will proceed in the Madras High Court.
Concluding Note:This ruling reinforces copyright protection in the Indian film industry and clarifies jurisdiction principles in IP disputes. The Madras High Court reaffirmed its territorial authority in cases where a substantial part of the cause of action occurs within its jurisdiction.
Case Title: Los Gatos Production Services India LLP vs. Wunderbar Films Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Date of Order: January 28, 2025
Case Number: C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 251 of 2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:240
Court Name: High Court of Madras
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Quddhose
Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
[Patent and Trademark Attorney]
High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer:The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
