Madras HC Dismisses Netflix Plea Against Actor Dhanush in Case

The Madras High Court on Tuesday rejected an application from Los Gatos, the Indian entity of OTT platform Netflix, which sought to dismiss actor Dhanush's lawsuit alleging copyright infringement by actress Nayanthara, her husband Vignesh Sivan, and others, at the preliminary stage. Justice Abdul Quddhose dismissed the application and scheduled a further hearing for February 5 regarding Dhanush's production house, Wunderbar's, request for an interim injunction against Los Gatos and the others involved.

In his application, Dhanush stated that he had produced the Tamil film 'Naanum Rowdy Daan' several years ago. He claimed that some of the behind-the-scenes footage from the film was used without permission in the making of Nayanthara's documentary, 'Nayanthara: Beyond the Fairytale,' which was broadcast on Netflix.

Dhanush mentioned that since Netflix’s office was located in Mumbai, outside the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court, he had filed an application seeking permission to sue the OTT platform in that court, which was granted. In response, Netflix filed the current application, seeking to revoke the order allowing Dhanush to sue.

Netflix argued that the plaintiff had only obtained permission to sue Los Gatos, as its office was located outside the court's jurisdiction. Netflix contended that the plaintiff should have obtained leave to sue all the defendants, not just Los Gatos.

Applications filed by Netflix seeking revocation of leave and rejection of plaint was dismissed by the High Court.

Netflix argued that the suit should have been filed in Kancheepuram, where the plaintiff's registered office is located. It also contended that leave was not specifically sought for the part of the cause of action that occurred outside the Madras High Court's jurisdiction. As a result, Netflix sought to have the leave revoked.

Netflix sought the rejection of the plaint on the grounds that there was no urgency, as the documentary had already been released. It argued that the plaintiff should have pursued mandatory pre-suit mediation instead.

The High Court rejected the plaintiff's case, leading to the dismissal of both applications.