HC orders Vivo to deposit ₹1 cr for copyright violation

The Bombay high court recently directed mobile manufacturer Vivo to deposit ₹1 crore in a copyright infringement case filed by Brand David Communications. Brand

The Bombay high court recently directed mobile manufacturer Vivo to deposit ₹1 crore in a copyright infringement case filed by Brand David Communications. Brand David — which claimed the idea it had mooted for an earlier Vivo phone was used by the mobile manufacturer to market another model — had sought ₹11 crore towards compensation through a commercial intellectual property suit.

HT Image

Senior advocate Dr Veerendra Tulzapurkar, representing Brand David, told a bench of justice B P Colabawalla that in 2018, his client had forwarded a marketing proposal, titled ‘Amusement Park,’ for Vivo’s V15 model. Vivo had sought a storyboard, which was provided, and an estimate of ₹10 lakh was raised for the creative presentation. In a letter in May 2019, Vivo had agreed to pay ₹10 lakh, but said it did not want Brand David’s services for the V15 campaign. Tulzapurkar pointed out that in the letter both parties had agreed that the material in the creative presentation was the intellectual property and proprietary material of Brand David. When Vivo had sought a presentation of ‘Amusement Park’ in June, Brand David obliged, and forwarded the script.

Tulzapurkar submitted that in September 2019, his client was surprised to see an ad campaign for Vivo V17 PRO model, featuring a Bollywood actor and titled ‘Light up the Night’, similar to the script provided by Brand David for the V15 model. He said it was “a flagrant imitation and/or copy of ‘Amusement Park’”, and their right ought to be protected by granting an ad-interim injunction, restraining Vivo from using the advertisement.

Vivo, through senior counsel Venkatesh Dhond, told the bench no confidential information was involved and as per the law, no copyright exists in an idea. Dhond submitted that there were many dissimilarities in ‘Amusement Park’ and ‘Light up the Night’ and the suit was “only filed to harass and extort monies”.

He submitted that the promotional film was made at a cost of ₹50 crore and time slots had been booked for its display; if any injunction was granted it would result in losses to Vivo. Dhond said Brand David’s claim can be compensated in terms of money. The vendor, who made the ‘Light Up the Night’ campaign also concurred with Vivo’s submissions.

Colabawalla noted that as there were many similarities in both themes, there was a ground for an injunction. He, however, said as Vivo had incurred a huge cost to produce the V17 promotional and book time slots, Brand David should state how much they would’ve charged had their theme been accepted. As there was no agreement on the price sought, Colabawalla directed Vivo to deposit ₹1 crore or furnish a bank guarantee of the amount with the court till the interim plea was finally heard and disposed.

On October 28, the vacation court further extended the deadline by a week.