{ Page-Title / Story-Title }

News Tamil

Kajal Aggarwal loses royalty case against VVD & Sons again


The bone of contention between the two parties was a video made by VVD & Sons to promote their products, which featured the actress.

Photo: Shutterbugs Images

Manigandan KR

The Madras high court has turned down actress Kajal Aggarwal's plea to restrict the coconut oil firm, VVD & Sons Pvt Ltd, from using a commercial she had acted in and has also refused to order additional royalty for the same.

Aggarwal's contention was that the company could use the commercial only for a year and that they were continuing to use it even after a year.

Turning down her plea, a division bench of the Madras high court comprising justices MM Sundaresh and N Anand Venkatesh upheld a single judge's order on the issue.

They also turned down her plea to order additional royalty to her, stating that VVD & Sons was the first owner of the copyright and that such a first owner of copyright had been conferred with a statutory right for a period of 60 years over the cinematograph of the film. This statutory right, the court ruled, could not be taken away by a performer in the cinematograph film by virtue of an agreement.

It may be recalled that Aggarwal filed this plea after losing a Rs2.5 crore copyright infringement suit against VVD & Sons Pvt Ltd.

The bone of contention between the two parties was a video made by VVD & Sons to promote their products, which featured the actress.

Aggarwal filed the copyright infringement suit as the company was using the video even after a year of its production. According to her, the general norm followed in the industry was that any advertisement could be used only for a year, unless clearly stated otherwise. Usually, companies would have to renew the deal after a year to use the advertisement.

She claimed that VVD & Sons had violated this norm by using the video for years without renewing the contract and claimed damages from the company for this alleged copyright infringement. The court dismissed her plea and ruled that an absolute owner of the copyright of a commercial film had every right to exploit the material for 60 years as per the Copyright Act.