Bombay High Court Denies Urgent Relief In Copyright Dispute Over Film "Sky Force"
Bombay High Court Denies Urgent Relief in Copyright Dispute Over Film "Sky Force"
The Bombay High Court rejected an applicant’s request to halt the release of Sky Force over alleged copyright infringement, ruling that the claims lacked urgency and were made too late.
The Bombay High Court has rejected an applicant’s request for urgent interim relief to halt the release of the film Sky Force, slated for release on January 24, 2025. The applicant, who claimed his copyrighted script titled Fire Bird was being infringed by the film, sought to prevent the defendants from releasing or exploiting the movie. The Court, however, found that the applicant’s claims were delayed and lacked urgency, especially considering that information about the film had been publicly available for months.
The applicant alleged that the film’s storyline bore a strong resemblance to his original script, which focused on the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War and particularly an air raid by the Indian Air Force on Pakistan’s Sargodha airbase. The applicant further claimed that he had shared his script with Defendant 1 in 2014 under a Memorandum of Understanding. He became aware of the potential infringement only when the trailer of Sky Force was released on January 8, 2025, prompting him to file a lawsuit.
However, the Court noted that the teaser for Sky Force had been available since October 2023, and detailed descriptions of the film were published by various media outlets, including an announcement on ottplay.com in March 2024. These materials, the Court observed, suggested the film was based on the 1965 air combat and that the script was written by Defendant 1. The Court found that the applicant had ample time to assess whether his work was being used in the film but waited until the last minute before seeking legal action.
The Court also emphasized that the applicant, being well-versed in the entertainment industry, could not claim ignorance of the widespread information about the film. In its ruling, the Court highlighted that the defendants had invested significant sums in the film, with theatrical rights already licensed and advance bookings underway. A delay in the release would cause considerable financial harm, especially given the film's readiness for distribution. The Court further noted that the applicant’s last-minute filing and demand for an injunction could be viewed as a litigation strategy rather than a genuine copyright concern.
Given the substantial investments and the timing of the application, the Court concluded that the balance of convenience favored the defendants. The request for an interim stay was therefore denied. The matter will be revisited in the Court on March 17, 2025.
