The Madras High Court has upheld an interim injunction restraining a YouTube content creator from streaming certain Tamil films without authorisation, refusing to lift the ban that had been imposed in a copyright infringement suit. The dispute arose when Raj Television Network Limited, asserting exclusive rights in specific Tamil films including 16 Vayathinile, Kalangarai Vilakkam and Kudiyirundha Kovil, moved the High Court after allegedly discovering that these works were being illegally uploaded and streamed on multiple YouTube channels operated by an individual named Palanivel Dhaksnamoorthy. Raj Television claimed that it held exclusive copyright, including digital and streaming rights in these films, under a valid chain of assignments and agreements dating back to the original producers and rights holders, and that such unauthorised exploitation caused prima facie infringement of its intellectual property rights. The plaintiff’s case was that the respondent’s actions of uploading and streaming the films on channels such as Tamil Blockbuster, Blockbuster Movies, B4K Music and Bravo HD Movies were undertaken without permission and constituted clear copyright violation. The respondent contested this by maintaining that he had obtained written permissions purportedly from original copyright owners, and further challenged the title and valuation claimed by Raj Television, thereby questioning the basis of the suit. The interim injunction restraining the streaming was initially granted ex parte in favour of Raj Television in its suit for copyright infringement, and the respondent approached the High Court seeking to have that order vacated, arguing against the validity of Raj Television’s exclusive rights and the continuation of the ban on his channels.
In an order delivered by Justice N Senthilkumar on December 12, 2025, the Madras High Court refused to lift the interim injunction, finding that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case regarding its copyright ownership in the films at issue as well as unauthorised exploitation by the respondent. The court examined the arguments on whether the permissions relied upon by the respondent could override the earlier assignments of rights that Raj Television presented, and it held that later permissions could not supersede the earlier valid chain of assignment of rights. It was on this basis that the bench concluded that the continuance of the injunction was justified, as there was a serious issue to be tried and the streaming of the films without proper licence or authorisation would likely cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s rights. The order confirmed that Raj Television’s exclusive rights extended to online distribution and streaming and that the alleged unauthorised postings on the respondent’s channels had prima facie infringed those rights, providing sufficient grounds for the injunction to remain in force.
In addition to upholding the injunction, the court also imposed a cost on the respondent, directing him to pay a sum as legal costs to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. This decision underlines the court’s position that unauthorised streaming of copyrighted content on digital platforms like YouTube, when opposed by a rights holder asserting exclusive copyright, warrants legal intervention and the continuation of interim protective measures when a strong prima facie case is made out. The matter before the High Court thus remains one where the injunction continues, with the court’s refusal to lift the interim order underscoring the importance of compliance with copyright law and the protection of intellectual property rights in the digital domain, particularly concerning online platforms and user-generated content.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.