Now, here follows the leagl notice sent by RGV's lawyer in response to Sridevi's legal notice.
To,
Naik Naik & Company,
Advocates,
Sirs,
In response to the notice issued by you vide Sr.No.NN-AND487/2014 Dt.7-10-2014 which was placed before me by my client Mr.Ram Gopal Varma, Film Director and on his instructions I am giving you the following Reply.
The averments made in your notice are false and as such denied except those that are specifically admitted herein.
It is true that your client is a well known actress by her talent in acting and also by name, but it does not mean that your client is having a copy right or monopoly right over the name "Sridevi ".The title of the movie "SRIDEVI" to which my client is associated with,the story of the said movie is not in the lines of a Director and a cine actress, as such the apprehension by your client that the said film is based on the likeness and persona of your client as such is baseless and meaningless and the allegations made against my client in your notice are defamatory and causing damage to the reputation of my client.
It is not correct to say that my client's film has scenes of immoral/obscene nature. Assuming that any such contents as alleged by your client are there in the film, there is a government appointed authority called “CENSOR BOARD” to monitor the same and it is none of your business to point the same based on media speculations about which my client already issued a clarification.
My client states that it cannot be presumed by your client a film to be made on her life with the title being her name, thereby causing substantial losses to your client..For your information there are 3 films with he same title “SRIDEVI” which have been made and released in the last two decades.
My client furthur states that coming to the point of changing the earlier title of the said film “SAAVITRI” was not because of the controversy and protests as falsely reported by some sections of media, but because of miscommunication on the production part and non reciept of no-objection of the title from the previous right holder of the title “SAAVITRI”.
My client states that in the above said circumstances my client refuses to cease the using of the name “SRIDEVI”, and for the same reasons will not publish an unconditional apology to your client in a news paper of national circulation.
Finally my client states that registration of the title of the motion picture “SRIDEVI” has been duly approved by the AndraPradesh Film Chamber of Commerce which is the only authorised body
My client therefore calls upon you to advice your client accordingly and inspite of this reply if your client continues to harass my client then my client will have no option except to initiate necessary action. I advise you and your client to not complicate the issue.
