Nayanthara vs Dhanush legal battle: Here's what the court said after the latest hearing

The documentary 'Nayanthara: Beyond The Fairy Tale', chronicling the wedding of Vignesh Shivan and Nayanthara, was released on Netflix in November last year. Prior to its release, the trailer featured a three-minute behind-the-scenes clip from the film Naanum Rowdy Dhaan. This inclusion triggered a legal notice from the film's producer, Dhanush, who demanded Rs 10 crore as compensation, citing unauthorized use of the footage. The latest hearing of the case happened yesterday (Jan 22), and here's what the court ordered.

In response to Dhanush's petition, Nayanthara issued a public statement strongly criticizing the actor's stance. Meanwhile, Vignesh Shivan sarcastically responded on Instagram, inviting viewers to watch the three-minute footage for free. Despite the backlash, the final documentary included 20 seconds of behind-the-scenes content from the movie. Dhanush’s Wunderbar Films escalated the issue by filing a petition in the Madras High Court, accusing Nayanthara, Vignesh Shivan, and Netflix of using the footage without prior consent. The court accepted the petition, allowing the case to proceed while instructing the respondents to file their responses. This marked the beginning of a series of legal proceedings.

As the case progressed, Netflix filed a petition seeking the dismissal of Dhanush's claims. The streaming platform argued that the lawsuit lacked merit under copyright law and contested the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court, stating that Dhanush's office is based in Kanchipuram, and therefore, the case should be filed in Kanchipuram or Mumbai, where Netflix has its headquarters. In response, Dhanush’s legal team countered by asserting that the agreement for Naanum Rowdy Dhaan was signed at an office in Chennai, making the Madras High Court an appropriate venue for the case.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the presiding judge chose to defer the case without setting a specific date for further proceedings. This indefinite postponement leaves the legal battle unresolved, with both parties awaiting the court’s next move in the contentious dispute over the documentary’s use of the film’s footage.