This article is written by – Khyaati Bansal, Maharaja Agrasen Institute of management studies
The Bombay High Court on Monday conceded transitory security from capture to the chiefs, and representatives of Sony Pictures Network India Pvt Ltd, proprietor of the SonyLIV OTT stage for a situation including affirmed slander and brand name encroachment of logo of Karad Urban Co-usable Bank (KUCB) [Sony Pictures Network India Pvt. Ltd. v. Province of Maharashtra and Anr.]
Senior Advocate Shirish Gupte showing up for Sony made two overlay entries:
That no FIR might have been enrolled for an offense of slander considering it was a non-cognizable offense;
That the offenses under the Trademarks Act must be examined by an official the same or higher than the position of Deputy Superintendent of the Police; anyway in the current case, the examination is being directed by an Inspector.
Senior Advocate Amit Desai, appearing for Applause Entertainment Ltd, the maker of the series, expressed that according to the judgment on account of Prateek Chandragupt Goyal v. Territory of Maharashtra the offense of encroachment isn’t made out.
A Bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar guided the Pune Police to think about the grounds in the request and the entries made by the Senior Counsel.
The Court expressed that until the rectifications are not made by the officials, the examination will remain.
“At this stage, it isn’t important to expound further, the trick is to say that the examination can’t go on further. Temporary stay on the examination allowed till the next date of hearing,” the Court requested.
Sony moved the High Court looking to subdue the FIR held up on protest by KUCB against obscure people, charging that in one of the scenes of the SonyLIV series ‘Trick 1992, The Harshad Mehta story’, a logo was shown behind the scenes which took after the reserved logo of KUCB making genuine harm the “monetary, business and social standing” of the bank.
On this protest, the Pune Police enlisted an FIR for offenses culpable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 102, 107 of the Trademarks Act, and Sections 66C and 43(b) of the Information Technology Act.
The desperation in moving toward the High Court was that Pune police had given notification under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, consequently suggesting that Sony was accused of the situation.
The matter has been recorded for conclusive hearing on September 17, 2021