Bombay High Court: In a commercial IP suit concerning infringement of copyright in sound recordings, a Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., held that Phonographic Performance Ltd. (‘PPL’), as an exclusive licensee, is entitled to maintain an action for infringement under Sections 54 and 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Court observed that objections regarding non-impleadment of the owner, incomplete agreements, and unstamped documents could not defeat interim relief at this stage. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from publicly performing or communicating the plaintiff’s repertoire of sound recordings without obtaining a licence.
Background:
The suit was filed for infringement of copyright and quia-timet action for apprehended future violation. The plaintiff claimed ownership/exclusive licence in sound recordings on the basis of assignment deeds and exclusive agreements with several music companies, asserting entitlement to grant licences for communication to the public under Section 30 of the Copyright Act.
It was alleged that the defendants, who operate about 94 restaurants, were broadcasting sound recordings without securing licences. Cease and desist notices were issued, and affidavits supported by video recordings of unauthorised broadcasts were placed on record.
The defendants contended that the suit was not maintainable for non-impleadment of the owner under Section 61 of the Copyright Act, that the plaintiff was not a registered copyright society, that material facts were suppressed, and that the agreements annexed were incomplete and inadequately stamped. They further argued that the licensing terms were unreasonable.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that the issue of the plaintiff’s right to grant licences without being registered as a copyright society under Section 33(1) of the Copyright Act was no longer res integra, as this Court had upheld such right in Novex Communications (P) Ltd. v. Trade Wings Hotesl Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 252. It was highlighted that the decision being rendered by Co-ordinate bench of this Court binds this Court.
The Court noted that Section 61 of Copyright Act requires impleadment of the owner unless the Court otherwise directs but observed that non-impleadment would not result in an absolute embargo. It was highlighted that Section 54 of Copyright Act includes an exclusive licensee within the expression “owner of copyright,” and Section 55 of Copyright Act entitles such owner to maintain an action for infringement.
The Court observed that objections regarding incomplete agreements were irrelevant since voluminous documents were placed on record through a compact disk and a sample agreement annexed. It was accepted that redacted agreements were permissible to protect confidential information. As regards unstamped agreements, the Court noted that Section 34 of the Stamp Act, 1899 places a statutory embargo on admissibility at the stage of evidence, but at the interim stage such objection would not prevent grant of relief.
The Court highlighted that unreasonable licensing fee structures could not be pressed into service as a defence in an infringement action, since Section 31 of Copyright Act proceedings were distinct. The Court noted that specific pleadings of infringement supported by affidavit and video recordings and observed that the defendants had not demonstrated entitlement to broadcast the copyrighted sound recordings.
The Court emphasised that the defendants are operating about 94 establishments, and continuing infringement would result in loss and damage to the plaintiff tilting the balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Court held that prima facie infringement was established, PPL had laid the foundation for apprehended violation, and continuing infringement would result in loss and damage. The Court restrained the defendants from publicly performing or communicating the sound recordings without obtaining a licence, thereby allowing the interim applications.
[Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Trinetra Venture, Commercial IP Suit No. 668 of 2025, decided on 24-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate along with Amogh Singh, Avanti, Asmant Nimbalkar, Neeraj Nawar, Shikha Dutta, Sheryl D’souza i/by D.P. Singh, Advocates
For the Defendants: Sandeep Parikh along with Arsalan A. Thaver i/by Abhiraj Parab, Advocates