6 months ago
2
The Madras High Court connected Wednesday (November 19, 2025) restrained the producers of the recently released Tamil movie Aaromaley from utilizing scenes and inheritance euphony from histrion Simbu alias Silambarasan and Trisha starrer 2010 blockbuster movie Vinnaithaandi Varuvaayaa (VTV).
Justice N. Senthilkumar granted the interim injunction pursuing a copyright infringement suit filed by RS Infotainment, the shaper of the 2010 movie helmed by acclaimed manager Gautham Vasudeva Menon, against Mini Studio LLP, the shaper of Aaromaley.
The plaintiff’s counsel Ramesh Ganapathy told the tribunal that RS Infotainment was a salient accumulation location that had galore critically acclaimed movies specified arsenic Ko, Ko2, Viduthalai portion I and Viduthalai portion 2 successful its portfolio and was astatine contiguous producing histrion Soori starrer Mandaadi.
He stated his lawsuit had produced VTV successful collaboration with Escape Artists Motion Pictures nether a 2009 associated task statement and therefore, holds each rights, including the close for reproduction, adaptation, and nationalist communication, nether Sections 14 and 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The tribunal was besides told that VTV was specified a cult movie that it got re-released connected February 5, 2022 and was exhibited astatine PVR INOX multiplex astatine VR buying promenade successful Anna Nagar, Chennai for implicit 1,400 days. He accused the producers of Aaromaley of having utilized scenes and inheritance euphony from VTV unauthorisedly.
Stating that Aaromaley was released successful theatres connected November 7 and was expected to marque to beryllium made disposable connected the OTT level excessively shortly, the plaintiff inisisted connected granting the interim injunction, restraining the usage of the scenes and inheritance euphony of VTV, against Hotstar too.
“The unauthorised usage of the plaintiff’s enactment not lone violates the plaintiff’s economical rights (as acceptable retired nether Section 14 of the Copyright Act) but besides undermines his motivation rights (under Section 57 of the Act) by modifying, adapting, oregon presenting his enactment successful ways that whitethorn struggle with the archetypal creator vision,” the plaint read.
It besides went connected to state: “The defendant’s refusal to halt these activities oregon negociate due licensing demonstrates atrocious religion and a wide intent to infringe upon the plaintiff’s rights. This ongoing infringement warrants contiguous ineligible enactment to support the plaintiff’s statutory and motivation rights nether the Copyright Act.”
