Anti-piracy and profits propel lawyer into Bollywood battle. (Up Front).

HARPREET Brar has taken to defending the world's biggest movie-making industry from piracy.

And he's doing it one grocery store at a time.

The 30-year-old Brar is suing ethnic grocery and retail stores throughout California that he claims sell illegal videos of so-called Bollywood movies--the marriage of Bombay and Hollywood.

Though he does not represent any Indian producers or studios, Brar's Long Beach firm, Brar & Gamulin, has sued 180 shops, mostly in Northern California, under a controversial California statute designed to protect the public from unfair, unlawful or fraudulent business practices and deceptive and misleading advertising.

"We would like to be known as the premiere firm in Indian piracy," said Brar, whose tiny practice includes partner Martin Gamulin and two secretaries. "That is our goal."

Brar's critics, however, believe he has other goals.

David Moyer, the Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP attorney representing several Santa Clara County grocery stores being sued, said Brar is only filing the suits to make money for himself.

"I was frankly disgusted by what appeared to be this lawyer suing in the name of the California public and not doing anybody any good," said Moyer, who is working pro bono in the finn's Palo Alto office. "He's not representing the Indian film industry and is only putting money in his own pocket."

Brar, who is of Indian descent, concedes he has no paying clients and that he makes his money from the roughly $2,000 in attorneys' fees stores pay to settle the suits.

Last year, about 40 stores in Los Angeles County settled with Brar. The going will not be as easy in Santa Clara, where 110 stores are fighting the allegations in Superior Court.

While the Indian studios have not backed Brar's efforts by signing on as clients, there is some support for his approach.

The 100-year-old Indian movie industry known as Bollywood is projected to generate more than $1.5 billion in revenues this year, and increasing piracy has raised concerns that home video sales and rentals will be materially affected.

Lal Dadlaney, president of Indian movie distributor Video Sound Inc. in Edison, N.J., said he plans to retain Brar & Gamulin as part of the company's effort to halt piracy on the West Coast. Dadlaney, who was approached by Brar & Gamulin in May, said, "I don't think a typical American law film would know the problems of the Indian film trade," he said.

Jawahar Sharma, head of operations at Yash Raj Films USA Inc., the New York distribution arm of Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd. in Mumbai, India, said his production company loses $4 million to $5 million a year from video piracy.

While he supports Brar's goals, he stopped short of saying he would hire the Long Beach firm. "It's just that you can't use any and every lawyer you meet in your life," Sharma said.

Video pirates sell illegally copied videos of movies to retailers for $5 to $6 each, compared to legitimate DVDs, which wholesale for $14 each.

Pirated content on DVDs has helped push down theater attendance, Dadlaney said, in turn forcing more films to go straight to video.

Attempts to curb piracy have been scattered and sporadic, and successful lawsuits few.

"Whatever we recover in costs has been negligible compared to the amount of money spent. These mom-and-pop stores don't have much in assets you can go after," Sharma said.

One Freemont shop owner sued by Brar said illegal copying of movies has been going on for decades. The shop owner, who asked to remain anonymous, said Brar is the first attorney in a decade to go after the practice.

"I don't blame the storeowners because the videos are expensive," said the shop owner, who said she sells only original movies. "You buy a video or a DVD and it costs from $18 to $25, or maybe $30. So many people want to rent them. How many copies will you buy to rent them?"

Brar's suits, however, have already made an impact, she said. A nearby video store has pulled several pirated copies from its shelves.

Brar said he always knew about video piracy among Indian stores--which he frequented several times during his childhood--but saw an opportunity to prosecute those stores using the provisions of the Business and Professions Code 17200. The law is designed to protect the public from unfair competition, including unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts; and from deceptive or misleading advertising.

Using 17200 is less expensive--and with a lower threshold of proof--than pursuing pirates over federal copyright violations. By using 17200 a lawyer doesn't have to prove who holds the copyright, only that the video's cover was misleading because it wasn't manufactured by the name appearing on the label, Brar said.

The stores, he said, might lead him to the distributors, who can lead him to the illegal manufacturers that are the source of the pirated videos. So far, however, he hasn't sued any distributors or manufacturers.

A number of defense attorneys, judges and legislators are concerned that the ease of filing under 17200 has caused too many lawyers to abuse the statute.

"It is a controversial law," Moyer said. "It basically gives people who otherwise wouldn't have standing, because they have no personal injury or haven't suffered harm, a right to sue to stop something that is an unfair business practice or illegal. What Brar is doing is using a law that was intended to stop public harm and applying it to a situation where there are other laws."

A spokeswoman for California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the office knows of thousands of cases alleging 17200 violations, many of which are not valid.

"It's tacked onto pretty much every lawsuit these days that claims any kind of illegal business activities," said Hallye Jordan, the Attorney General's spokeswoman. "We have heard of allegations from business owners who believe they're being unfairly targeted with frivolous lawsuits, and we are concerned about that."

A number of bills have been introduced to the state legislature addressing 17200 abuses, said John H. Sullivan, a president of the Civil Justice Association of California in Sacramento, but none have made it to the governor's desk. The latest, Assembly Bill 1884, introduced by Assemblyman Robert Pacheco, Rep.-Industry, would have required attorneys to have an actual plaintiff who has suffered a "distinct and palpable injury," according to the Civil Justice Association of California. The bill failed before the Assembly Judicial Committee May 14.

Brar's complaint in the suit against the Santa Clara stores was sent back for re-drafting by Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Jack Komar. The action supported the defendants' claim that the stores do not have enough in common to be placed in a single lawsuit.

Brar said the only defense for the stores is to discredit him. He said he hopes to form an industry association soon with the support he has from some distributors so defense attorneys will no longer claim he is abusing the state system.

"I'm not losing money, but I'm not making a substantial amount of money, either," Brar said. "We're new, and we're just trying to make a name for ourselves and build a business."