- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Bombay High Court provides relief to Criminal Justice show producers
Bombay High Court provides relief to Criminal Justice show producers
The respondent was illegally using the artistic work, promotional material, and still photographs of the web series
The Bombay High Court has granted ad-interim relief to producers of the show 'Criminal Justice' show in a copyright infringement suit.
Justice RI Chagla directed the respondent, Krishna Anand to refrain from directly or indirectly using or publishing the posts and photographs of actors, characters, and their still images from the web series, on social media.
After the producers came across a casting call for the web series made by Anand through an Instagram account, they issued a legal notice to him to delete the posts and to cease and desist from using the plaintiff's material.
As he failed to comply, a copyright suit was instituted against him. It sought to restrain Anand from committing acts of copyright infringement, violation of the plaintiff's publicity rights, and misrepresentation.
The plea contended that the respondent was using the plaintiff's artistic work, promotional material, creatives, and still photographs of the web series, Criminal Justice, without permission. It meant violating the plaintiff's copyright.
The plea submitted that the defendant not only invited auditions from male artists, but also from female and child artists. It reasoned that the defendant could indulge in other illegal activities by misusing the photographs and videos.
It was further stated that the defendant committed the wrongful acts deliberately, dishonestly and in bad faith to lure innocent people. He took undue advantage of the naivety and innocence of struggling film actors trying to make an impact in the competitive film industry.