IPR Moot Problem -1

1. Mr. Shukla is a famous business tycoon of the Republic of Banana. He owns various
brands and companies and has invested in various industries. As per the financial
newspapers, he is one of the richest persons in the Republic of Banana. Lately, because of
his interest in film making, he started a production company named “100% Tamasha.”
He has filed for registering a trademark on the term “100% Tamasha” before the
Registrar of Trademarks.
2. However, the registrar objected to the grant of a trademark on the ground that the mark
consists exclusively of words and indications which may serve in trade to designate the
intended purpose of the services that are to be provided. The objection raised by the
registrar was that the word “tamasha” indicates the service of movie production as the
term “Tamasha” means drama. The order of the registrar was challenged before the High
Court of Banana by Mr. Shukla.
3. Mr. Sharma is anIndian director who has won accolades both in Republic of Banana of
which he is a citizen and abroad. His movies and documentaries are praised for
challenging the existing social and economic hierarchies. Lately, he has become
infamous for producing commercial films. He is also being criticized for bad scripts in
the movies.
4. Mr. Sharma approached 100% Tamasha to make a movie named “Return of Khan”
starring a famous movie star Mr. Vuru Perma. Mr. Shukla of 100% Tamasha agreed to
fund the production of the movie. The movie did well on the box office and was a
commercial success. However, Mr. Perma was criticized for his mediocre acting.
5. Mr. Sharma who had been involved with the direction, screenplay, script and dialogues of
“Return of Khan” was approached by one Mr. Jamal to remake the movie in Telugu. Mr.
Sharma entered into an agreement and assigned the rights over the script to Mr. Jamal for
Rs. 150 Crores.
6. When Mr. Shukla came to know of such an assignment, he challenged the same on the
ground that he was a joint owner of the movie “Return of Khan” and the right to remake
the movie cannot be transferred without his consent. Mr. Shukla approached the High
Court of Banana to restrain the transfer of the rights over the script.
 IPR Moot Problem -1

7. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma contended that since the movie was his intellectual
brainchild, he alone was the author/owner of the rights over the script of the movie.
Merely because Mr. Shukla provided financing to make the movie, he cannot claim joint
authorship of the script.
8. After the release of the movie Mr. VuruPerma became a subject of massive criticism on
social media on account of his acting. Mr. Lalwani, a Youtuber with more than 4 lakh
subscribers, made a video meme mocking Mr. VuruPerma. The video used clips from
“Return of Khan” to mock his acting with the text questioning Mr. VuruPerma’s
achievements and competence as an actor. The video was an instant hit and started a
meme fest on Mr. VuruPerma and his acting.
9. This video both economically and morally affected the standing of Mr. Perma in the film
fraternity. He was ignored and was not invited to film festivals and award functions.
Despite the success of “Return of Khan” he failed to get any new work. People widely
believed that the video made by Mr. Lalwani which now had more than 46 crore views
was instrumental in degrading Mr. Perma’s reputation. Aggrieved by all this Mr. Perma
now approached the High Court of Banana against Mr. Lalwani claiming violation of
performers rights.

The High Court of Banana has to decide the following issues:

1. Whether the term “100% Tamasha” is indicative of the services that are to be provided
and can it be granted a new trademark?
2. Whether Mr. Shukla is a joint author of the script and can the rights over the script be
transferred unilaterally by Mr. Sharma?
3. Whether any of the performers of rights of Mr. VuruPerma were violated on account of
Mr. Lalwani’s meme video?

* The laws of Republic of Banana are parimateria to India and other common law
jurisdictions.

* For the purpose of this moot High Court of Banana is the appropriate forum and all the
questions are to be decided in the same hearing.