Wieden+Kennedy INDIA Private Limited vs. Jindal Steel And Power Limited

Facts

The petitioner, Wieden+Kennedy India Private Limited, an advertising agency, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim relief. The petitioner alleged that the respondent, Jindal Steel and Power Limited, terminated their Services Agreement dated May 8, 2023, prematurely, failed to honor payment terms, and subsequently launched an impugned video titled ‘Jindal Steel- the Steel of India’ in March 2024, which the petitioner claims infringes their copyright. The Services Agreement was for developing a brand campaign, with a total consideration of Rs. 1.75 crores plus taxes. The petitioner claims to have developed original works including script, screenplay, and unique expressions for the ad film. The dispute arose after the respondent terminated the agreement on July 25, 2023, despite the petitioner having substantially worked on the project and delivered on several milestones.

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for copyright infringement, the balance of convenience tilted in favor of the respondent. The Court noted that the impugned video had already been launched and widely disseminated across various media platforms, with advertisement slots booked and significant expenses incurred by the respondent. Granting an injunction at this stage would cause irreversible prejudice to the respondent. The Court reasoned that if copyright infringement is ultimately found, the petitioner can still seek damages and other suitable recompense from the arbitrator. To balance the equities, particularly since the petitioner had not been paid for the materials supplied, the Court directed the respondent to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs plus 18% GST (totaling Rs. 59 lakhs) in the Court within two weeks. This amount would be kept in an interest-bearing Fixed Deposit Receipt, subject to further directions from the sole arbitrator. The Court clarified that these interim measures would remain in force until varied or modified by the sole arbitrator. The Court also appointed Hon’ble Ms. Justice (Retd.) Mukta Gupta as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute. All rights and contentions of the parties were left open for the arbitrator's adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for infringement of copyright in the impugned video, considering the terms of the Services Agreement and the materials presented by both parties, particularly concerning the alleged use of elements developed by the petitioner? (Section 2(1)(h) and 2(1)(o) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Clause 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 of the Services Agreement). 2. Whether the balance of convenience favors granting an injunction against the respondent, or if monetary compensation would be adequate relief, given the extensive dissemination of the impugned video and the potential prejudice to the respondent? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that they are the original creators and copyright owners of the ad film campaign, including the impugned video, and that the respondent's actions constitute copyright infringement. They argued that the respondent used their confidential information and intellectual property without proper payment or authorization, violating the terms of the Services Agreement. They relied on the similarity of elements and the montage format used in the respondent's campaign, which they claim were developed by them. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the balance of convenience does not favor an injunction, citing the extensive dissemination of the campaign, booked advertisement slots, and incurred expenses. They also contended that the petitioner had not been paid in full and that the dispute should be resolved by the arbitrator.