Delhi High Court: In an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, C. Hari Shankar, J., till the next date of hearing, restrained the defendants and all other acting on their behalf from playing any of the recordings which formed the subject matter of the plaintiff’s copyright and figuring on the plaintiff’s website without obtaining a prior license from the plaintiff.
In an instant case, Phonographic Performance Limited, the plaintiff was the copyright owner in the recordings which formed the part of its repertoire and were also available on the plaintiff’s website. The plaintiff’s grievance was that the song and other recordings in which the plaintiff held the copyright were being played in the defendants’ outlets without obtaining a license from them. The plaintiff stated that they had addressed notices to the defendants and called upon them to desist from playing of the copyrighted recordings of the plaintiff without obtaining license from them. However, despite the notices, the defendants continued to play the copyrighted recordings.
Further, One8 Commune was also impleaded in the present case as Defendant 4, in view of advertisement which reflected the mark One8 Commune, and it was submitted that One8 Commune was a cafe, which operated under the name of True Palate Cafe Private Limited.
The Court observed that this was not the first instance when such dispute had come up before this Court and earlier also, a batch of suits had come up before the Court. However, vide order dated 20-10-2023, the Court had restrained from playing the plaintiff’s copyrighted recordings without obtaining a license from them. The Court opined that the position in law was prima facie clear and since, the plaintiff was the copyright owner in the recordings, it would not be permissible to play the said recordings without obtaining a prior license from the plaintiff, especially where the recordings were being played for commercial benefit.
The Court opined the exercise of such infringement in copyright had been continuing for some time, therefore, a prima facie case for grant of interlocutory injunction was made out. The Court further opined that failure to grant such injunction was bound to result in continued infringement of copyright and the principles of balance of convenience and irreparable loss would also justify the grant of interim injunction as sought.
Thus, till the next date of hearing the Court restrained the defendants and all other acting on their behalf from playing any of the recordings which formed the subject matter of the plaintiff’s copyright and figuring on the plaintiff’s website without obtaining a prior license from the plaintiff.
The matter would next be listed before the Court on 15-01-2024.
[Phonographic Performance Limited v. Cornerstone Sport and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7911, Order dated 10-11-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiff: Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocate with Ankur Sangal, Sucheta Roy, Raghu Vinayak Sinha, Shaurya Pandey and Yashi Aggarwal, Advocates;
For the Defendants: Pawan Bindra, Senior Advocate with Rahul Dhawan and Vaishali Singh, Advocates; Sahil Solanki, Advocate
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
