The case Los Gatos Production Services India LLP v. Wunderbar Films Pvt. Ltd.[1] brings to light a crucial jurisdictional debate in copyright law, questioning whether the Madras High Court had the authority to hear the dispute. The conflict arose when Netflix’s unit, Los Gatos, was sued for allegedly including behind-the-scenes (BTS) footage from Naanum Rowdy Dhaan in the documentary Nayanthara: Beyond the Fairytale[2]. Netflix challenged the suit, arguing that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction.
This case highlights the growing complexities of jurisdiction in intellectual property disputes, especially in an era where digital content transcends geographical boundaries. It raises important questions about forum shopping, the interplay between the Copyright Act and Letters Patent, and the strategic use of jurisdictional objections by large corporations. The judgment sets a significant precedent for how Indian courts handle IP disputes involving multinational entities.
Background of the Case
The case involves a copyright dispute between Los Gatos Production Services India LLP (a unit of Netflix) and Wunderbar Films Pvt. Ltd., along with other parties. Wunderbar Films, the production house behind the Tamil movie Naanum Rowdy Dhaan, alleged that Netflix’s documentary Nayanthara: Beyond the Fairytale used behind-the-scenes (BTS) footage from the film without proper authorization.
Wunderbar Films claimed copyright infringement, asserting that they owned the exclusive rights to the BTS content and that its unauthorized use violated their intellectual property. In response, Netflix challenged the maintainability of the suit, arguing that the Madras High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The key procedural objections included:
- Jurisdictional Challenge – Netflix contended that no part of the cause of action arose in Chennai, as they were based in Mumbai.
- Pre-Suit Mediation – Netflix argued that the plaintiff failed to comply with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, which mandates mediation before litigation.
Thus, the case became a legal battle not just over copyright, but also over the procedural aspects of jurisdiction and the applicability of different legal provisions.
Legal Issues
The case primarily revolved around jurisdictional objections raised by Netflix, which challenged the maintainability of the suit before the Madras High Court. The key legal issues were:
1. Jurisdictional Challenge: Netflix argued that no part of the cause of action arose in Chennai, making the case inadmissible before the Madras High Court. They contended that since Los Gatos was based in Mumbai and the documentary was released on a global platform, Chennai was not the appropriate forum for litigation. However, Wunderbar Films countered that the film Naanum Rowdy Dhaan was produced and released in Chennai, and the alleged copyright infringement also affected stakeholders in the city.
2. Section 62[3] of the Copyright Act vs. Clause 12 of the Letters Patent: Section 62 of the Copyright Act allows a copyright owner to file a lawsuit in the district where they reside or conduct business, irrespective of where the infringement occurred. On the other hand, Clause 12 of the Letters Patent allows the High Court to assume jurisdiction if a part of the cause of action arises within its territorial limits. The central debate was whether Clause 12 provided an additional remedy or if Section 62 excluded other jurisdictional provisions.
3. Doctrine of Election: Netflix invoked the doctrine of election, arguing that Wunderbar Films, having chosen to sue under Section 62 of the Copyright Act, could not simultaneously invoke Clause 12 of the Letters Patent to establish jurisdiction. The court, however, rejected this argument, holding that Clause 12 was not excluded and could be invoked alongside Section 62.
4. Pre-Suit Mediation (Section 12A, Commercial Courts Act): Another major contention was Netflix’s claim that Wunderbar Films failed to comply with Section 12A[4] of the Commercial Courts Act, which mandates pre-litigation mediation in commercial disputes. Netflix argued that since the BTS footage had been available since 2020, the plaintiff had no urgency to bypass mediation. However, Wunderbar Films maintained that the dispute arose only in November 2024, when they discovered the alleged infringement in Netflix’s documentary. The court ultimately sided with Wunderbar Films, accepting that urgent interim relief was required, thereby justifying the suit’s immediate filing without mediation.
These legal questions made the case significant in clarifying jurisdictional issues in copyright disputes and the procedural requirements under Indian commercial law.
Court’s Reasoning
The Madras High Court ruled that a significant part of the cause of action arose in Chennai, thereby affirming its territorial jurisdiction. The court noted that the film Naanum Rowdy Dhaan was produced in Chennai, some of its scenes were filmed there, and key agreements including the artist contract were executed in the city. The court further clarified that Clause 12 of the Letters Patent did not exclude the applicability of Section 62 of the Copyright Act. Instead, it provided an additional jurisdictional ground, allowing the plaintiff to file the suit in Chennai even though the defendant (Netflix) was based in Mumbai.
Pre-Suit Mediation Exemption
Netflix had argued that the suit should be dismissed because Wunderbar Films failed to comply with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, which mandates pre-litigation mediation. However, the court found that the urgency of copyright infringement justified bypassing mediation. Since the documentary was released on November 18, 2024, and the lawsuit was filed promptly, the court held that the plaintiff had a valid reason for seeking immediate relief.
Rejection of Netflix’s Objections
The court dismissed Netflix’s objections regarding jurisdiction and maintainability, ruling that the case was properly instituted. It concluded that the plaintiff had demonstrated a strong cause of action and that the Madras High Court had the authority to adjudicate the dispute.
My Opinion: The Expanding Scope of IP Jurisdiction
The Court’s Balanced Approach
The Madras High Court’s ruling in Los Gatos v. Wunderbar Films reflects a progressive approach to jurisdiction in intellectual property (IP) disputes. By affirming that Clause 12 of the Letters Patent can be invoked alongside Section 62 of the Copyright Act, the court acknowledged the practical realities of copyright litigation. This decision ensures that plaintiffs are not unfairly restricted in their choice of jurisdiction, especially when part of the cause of action arises in multiple locations. Rather than creating procedural hurdles, the judgment reinforces that jurisdictional provisions should serve as safeguards to facilitate justice, not restrict access to courts.
Netflix’s Jurisdictional defence – Tactical or Genuine?
It is not uncommon for multinational corporations to challenge jurisdiction as a legal strategy. By arguing that the suit should have been filed elsewhere, Netflix attempted to shift the case to a potentially less favourable forum for the plaintiff. This raises a critical issue: should large corporations be allowed to exploit procedural loopholes to delay or complicate litigation? The court’s rejection of Netflix’s objections sends a strong message against forum shopping and reinforces that jurisdiction should be determined based on substantive connections rather than strategic preferences.
A Need for Clearer IP Jurisdiction Laws
While this ruling clarifies the interaction between Section 62 of the Copyright Act and Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, broader uncertainties remain in Indian IP litigation. With digital content easily crossing geographical boundaries, there is a growing need for legislative clarity on jurisdictional issues in copyright disputes. Future legal reforms should focus on defining clearer guidelines for determining territorial jurisdiction in cases involving online platforms and multinational entities. By doing so, India can strengthen its IP enforcement framework while ensuring that both rights holders and defendants receive fair treatment under the law.
Conclusion
The Los Gatos v. Wunderbar Films case is a crucial precedent in shaping jurisdictional principles in intellectual property litigation. The Madras High Court’s ruling reinforces the idea that jurisdiction should be determined based on substantive legal connections rather than procedural technicalities. By affirming that Clause 12 of the Letters Patent provides an additional, rather than an exclusive, jurisdictional ground, the court has upheld a plaintiff-friendly approach in copyright disputes. This decision not only prevents forum shopping by powerful corporations but also ensures that Indian IP law evolves in a way that balances procedural fairness with substantive justice.
[1] Los Gatos Production Services India LLP v. Wunderbar Films Pvt. Ltd., C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.251 of 2024.
[2] Nayanthara: Beyond the Fairytale is a 2024 documentary film about the early years of Indian actress Nayanthara and the struggles that followed by along her career to eventually become one of the biggest actresses in India. The film was produced and distributed by Netflix and directed by Amith Krishnan.
[3] The Copyright Act, 1957, § 62, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).
[4] The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, § 12A, No. 4, Acts of Parliament, 2015 (India).
Authored by: Ms. Aeshita Marwah
Blogger, The IP Press
Leave a Reply