Introduction:
In Entertainment Network India Limited v. Miss Malini Entertainment Private Limited (CS(COMM) 1141/2024 & I.A. 48675/2024), the Delhi High Court addressed a case of alleged copyright infringement arising from the unauthorized use of interview footage related to the popular talk show What Women Want. Entertainment Network India Limited (ENIL), the producer and broadcaster of the talk show, filed a suit against Miss Malini Entertainment, alleging a breach of understanding concerning the use of promotional content and the affixing of unauthorized logos. Justice Mini Pushkarna granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from transmitting, uploading, or using the interview and its related content until further orders, citing irreparable harm to ENIL’s commercial interests and reputation.
Arguments of Both Sides:
The plaintiff, ENIL, argued that it holds exclusive ownership rights over the content of the talk show What Women Want, hosted by Kareena Kapoor-Khan. ENIL submitted that the defendant, Miss Malini Entertainment, was engaged to promote the show through an interview conducted with Kapoor. As per the agreement, the interview was to feature ENIL’s logo and branding, with the defendant requiring prior approval before uploading the content. ENIL alleged that the defendant unilaterally uploaded a short-form video of the interview on Instagram, edited out ENIL’s branding, and affixed its logo, “MissMalini,” thereby creating the impression that the interview was its exclusive content.
Further, ENIL contended that the defendant violated the agreement by uploading a long-form video of the interview on YouTube without approval, despite receiving a cease-and-desist notice. ENIL claimed that these actions undermined its exclusive rights, misrepresented the origin of the content, and caused irreparable harm to its commercial interests and reputation.
On the other hand, Miss Malini Entertainment argued that its actions were within the scope of the agreement and claimed there was no malafide intent. It contended that the content uploaded was promotional and did not constitute copyright infringement. The defendant submitted that ENIL’s claims were exaggerated and that the cease-and-desist notice was issued without providing an opportunity for clarification.
Court’s Judgement:
The Delhi High Court, after examining the submissions, held that ENIL had established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction. Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that ENIL demonstrated ownership of the content and presented sufficient evidence to show that the defendant’s actions were unauthorized and contrary to mutual understanding. The Court noted that the defendant’s conduct of obscuring ENIL’s branding and affixing its logo was likely to mislead viewers regarding the origin of the interview.
The Court emphasized the principle of balance of convenience, finding that it tilted in favour of ENIL. It reasoned that allowing the defendant to continue using the content would result in irreparable harm to ENIL’s commercial interests and reputation, particularly given the substantial revenue generated by the talk show over its five seasons.
Consequently, the Court restrained Miss Malini Entertainment from transmitting, uploading, or using any cinematograph or dramatic works related to the show or the interview on any platform. It directed the defendant to remove the short-form and long-form videos from its website, YouTube channel, and Instagram account. Notices were issued to the defendants, and the matter was listed for further hearing on May 13, 2025.