Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by the Phonographic Performance Limited (‘plaintiff’) seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff, and other ancillary reliefs, Amit Bansal, J., stated that irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff if the defendants continue to play the sound recordings of the plaintiff’s copyrighted works without obtaining any license from the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants and any other person working for and on behalf of the defendants from doing any act including exploitation/use of the plaintiff’s copyrighted works in any of its outlets till the final adjudication of the suit.
Background
Plaintiff was a company limited by guarantee, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, engaged in the business of issuing licences for public performance of sound recordings based on the assignments granted to it by its various member record labels. The plaintiff owned and/or controlled the public performance rights of 400+ music labels, with more than 4 million international and domestic sound recordings.
The plaintiff had executed assignment deeds under Section 18 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (‘Act’) with its assignors in respect of the assignors’ sound recordings, wherein they had assigned the public performance rights of the sound recordings to the plaintiff. Between 07-05-1996 and 21-06-2014, the plaintiff company was a registered copyright society under Section 33 of the Act, and thereafter in 2014, due to the amendment brought in the Act, the plaintiff surrendered its registration as there was a statutory requirement for all the registered copyright societies to re-register themselves.
Defendant 1 was a company engaged in the business of running restaurants and bars in the casual dining sector. Some of the restaurants run by Defendant 1 company include ‘Mamagoto’, ‘Dhaba’ and ‘Sly Granny’ which had several outlets throughout India including New Delhi.
The representatives of the plaintiff visited the restaurants being run by the defendants at two locations and found that the defendants were exploiting the sound recording of the plaintiff in the said premises without taking any license from the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist notice to the defendants on 20-06-2022, but the defendants did not reply to the said notice.
Thereafter, representatives of the plaintiff visited another restaurant operated by the defendants and discovered that the defendants were continuing their infringing activities even after the receipt of a cease-and-desist notice. Hence, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff, and other ancillary reliefs.
The plaintiff contended that it had filed the present suit as an owner of copyright and not as a copyright society. As an owner, the plaintiff had the right to decide the rates of license and the defendant could not question the same. The plaintiff had published the tariff rate applicable for restaurants/bars on the plaintiff’s website. Whereas the defendants had contended that the plaintiff carried on ‘the business of granting licenses’ as provided in Section 33(1) of the Act as a copyright society and not as an ‘owner’ of sound recordings in its individual capacity. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled for protection under the first proviso to Section 33 of the Act.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court referred to Novex Communications v. Trade Wings Hotel, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 252, wherein it was held that Section 30 of the Act gives the right to the owner, or the assignee, which had become the owner by virtue of the assignment, to grant licenses in respect of the copyrighted works. Therefore, PPL and Novex, as owners/assignees, have the power to grant interest in the copyright by granting a license which would include the right to communicate the sound recordings to the public.
The Court noted that Section 33 of the Act comes into play only where owners, who were members of a copyright society, have assigned the right to give licenses to a copyright society. In respect of owners, who were members of a copyright society, the position was clarified by the first proviso to Section 33(1) that such an owner should be free to grant licenses in respect of his own works in his individual capacity. The only limitation on such an owner was that an owner could not grant a license in his individual capacity, in respect of a work, which he had already exclusively licensed to a copyright society.
The Court stated that the right of giving a license in his works was an inherent right of a copyright owner under Section 30 of the Act. This right would necessarily include the ‘business of issuing or granting licence’, the expression which occurs in Section 33(1) and the second proviso thereto. Therefore, the second proviso to Section 33(1) could not put any fetters on the inherent right of a copyright owner to grant licenses in respect of his works or engage in the ‘business of issuing or granting licence’.
Thus, the Court stated that Section 33 of the Act could not override the provisions of Section 30 of the Act which gives an absolute right to an owner of the copyright to grant any interest in the copyrighted work by way of a license.
The Court noted that the plaintiff claimed to be the owner of copyright in respect of the public performance rights for various sound recordings based on assignments in its favour by various music companies. In terms of the deeds of assignment in favour of the plaintiff, the ‘public performance rights’ of the ‘sound recordings’ were assigned in the plaintiff’s favour. Therefore, as per Section 18 of the Act, the plaintiff had become the owner of the aforesaid sound recordings, the details of which were available on the plaintiff’s website. The Court stated that prima facie, the plaintiff had established itself as the copyright owner of the ‘sound recordings’ based on assignment deeds in its favour.
The Court observed that there was no specific assertion by the defendants, that they were not playing the plaintiff’s copyrighted works. It could not be denied that the playing of the aforesaid sound recordings in various restaurants of the defendants would enhance the experience of the customers and result in a higher consumer footfall. The Court stated that the plaintiff had also published the tariffs on its website, which were applicable to various restaurants/bars across the board. Therefore, it could not be the case that the defendants were charged a higher rate in respect of their establishments.
The Court stated that the balance of convenience was also in the plaintiff’s favour and against the defendants. Even if the defendants were restrained from playing the sound recordings of the plaintiff in their restaurants, it would not result in closure or interruption of the core business of the defendants of serving food/drinks. On the other hand, irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff if the defendants continue to play the sound recordings of the plaintiff’s copyrighted works without obtaining any license from the plaintiff.
Thus, considering the legal position, the act of the defendants of playing the sound recordings in their restaurants/bars, for which the plaintiff holds the copyright would, on a prima facie view, amount to infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright as per Section 51 of the Copyrights Act.
Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants, its directors, partners or proprietors, licensees, assigns, officers, servants, agents, representatives, contractors, sister concerns and any other person working for and on behalf of the defendants from doing any act including exploitation/use of the plaintiff’s copyrighted works in any of its outlets till the final adjudication of the suit.
The matter would next be listed on 15-07-2025.
[Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Azure Hospitality (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1239, decided on 03-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Rajiv Nayar and Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocates with Ankur Sangal, Sucheta Roy, Raghu Vinayak Sinha, Shaurya Pandey and Ananya Mehan, Advocates.
For the Defendants: Swathi Sukumar, Senior Advocate with S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Kartik Malhotra, A. Mandal, Ritik Raghuvanshi and Rishubh Agarwal, Advocates.