The Hollywood production house had earlier been granted injunction by the high court on the plea of infringement of copyrighted literary work in its 2003 English film Phone Booth, which they said was copied.
The matter was argued for ad-interim relief on 13 October before the bench comprising of the Chief Justice Mohit Shah and justice Dhananjay Chandrachud after a special screening of the contentious movie was organised yesterday.
Naik Paranjpe managing partner instructed senior counsel Iqbal Chagla for AAP Entertainment and senior advocate Venkatesh Dhond appeared for the other producer Sohail Maklai while Twentieth Century Fox was led by law firm Neolegal Associates along with senior counsels Virendra Tulzapurkar and Firoz Palkhivala.
The argument advanced in favour of the movie ‘Knock Out’ was that the script was new and original work not a reproduction of the Hollywood flick.
“Mr. Chagla also submitted that Fox has filed on the basis of speculative reports which cannot be relied upon. Mr. Chagla submitted that the suit is bad on the ground of delay and latches. Mr. Chagla also submitted that Fox is claiming copyright in idea, which is not copyrightable,” said a Naik Paranjpe in a statement.
The stay has been vacated on the deposit Rs.1.5 crores in court with instructions to render accounts of exploitation film proceeds in the court by the producers.
Comments
Where is the need for "has" in the above sentence?
"The Hollywood production house had earlier been granted injunction by the high court on the plea of infringement of copyrighted literary work in its 2003 English film Phone Booth, which they said was copied."
Article missing in the above sentence.
"The matter was argued for ad-interim relief on 13 October before the bench comprising of the Chief Justice Mohit Shah and justice Dhananjay Chandrachud after a special screening of the contentious movie was organised yesterday."
Why is the preposition "of" used after comprising? If Chief Justice is capitalised, then when not justice, a few words later?
"The argument advanced in favour of the movie ‘Knock Out’ was that the script was new and original work not a reproduction of the Hollywood flick."
Again, article is missing. "Flick" is lazy slang. As in Chick Flick.
"Mr. Chagla also submitted that Fox has filed on the basis of speculative reports which cannot be relied upon. Mr. Chagla submitted that the suit is bad on the ground of delay and latches. Mr. Chagla also submitted that Fox is claiming copyright in idea, which is not copyrightable,” said a Naik Paranjpe in a statement."
Fox filed what? Latches or laches? The sentence could be written in the past tense, more so when the earlier paragraph is in the past tense.
"The stay has been vacated on the deposit Rs.1.5 crores in court with instructions to render accounts of exploitation film proceeds in the court by the producers."
The above sentence is badly structured. "Render accounts of exploitation film proceeds"??!! Bad, Bad Bad. Makes no sense, and grammatically incorrect.
Come on LI, I know it is a Friday evening, but surely you can do better than this.
how come no comment on how naik's copyright lawyers failed?