- in India
- within Technology, Privacy and Consumer Protection topic(s)
- with readers working within the Retail & Leisure and Law Firm industries
While enforcing copyright in sound recordings, legal boundaries are often examined when commercial establishments question the authority of copyright owners and exclusive licensees to control public performances. The Copyright Act, 1957, provide provisions for protecting sound recordings and regulating their public communication. However, disputes often arise over licensing rights, collective management, and their enforcement. These issues were central in Phonographic Performance Limited vs Trinetra Venture & Ors., decided by the Bombay High Court.
The dispute began when Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), which manages public performance rights for sound recordings, initiated infringement proceedings against restaurant chains operating approximately 94 locations. PPL claimed that the defendants were publicly playing sound recordings from its collection without obtaining the required licence under Section 30 of the Copyright Act. PPL stated that, despite repeated cease-and-desist notices, the defendants continued to broadcast copyrighted sound recordings, constituting infringement and giving rise to a quia timet action to prevent future violations.
The suit raised key questions as to whether an entity claiming to be the owner or exclusive licensee of sound recordings can enforce public performance rights without being registered as a copyright society under Section 33(1) of the Copyright Act. The defendants further questioned whether such enforcement could proceed without including the original copyright owners, based on Section 61 of the Act. They raised other objections about the validity, stamping, and completeness of the assignment and licensing agreements PPL used.
Section 30 of the Copyright Act enables the copyright owner, or an authorised agent, to grant licences for public use of works. PPL contended that it obtained its authority from assignment deeds and exclusive licensing agreements with multiple music labels, granting it the exclusive right to license public performance of sound recordings in its repertoire. The defendants, however, argued that without being registered as a copyright society, PPL lacked the authority to demand licence fees or to restrain public performance.
This issue has long been controversial, especially since different High Courts have taken different views. The Bombay High Court, relying on its earlier decision in Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. vs Trade Wings Hotels Limited, reaffirmed that registration under Section 33(1) is not required for a copyright owner or exclusive licensee. The Court emphasised that a coordinate bench's ruling is binding and that decisions from the Delhi High Court do not apply in the Bombay High Court. Accordingly, PPL's right to seek an injunction was upheld.
Another important issue before the Court was the applicability of Section 61 of the Copyright Act, which requires the original copyright owner to be included in suits filed by exclusive licensees, unless the Court directs otherwise. The defendants argued that excluding the original owners rendered the case invalid. The Court rejected this contention, stating that Section 61 does not create an absolute rule, noting that PPL had instituted the suit both as a copyright owner by virtue of assignments and as an exclusive licensee, thereby giving rise to a joint cause of action.
The Court also relied on Sections 54 and 55 of the Copyright Act, which state that for the purposes of civil remedies, the term "owner of copyright" includes an exclusive licensee. Reading of these sections together establishes that an exclusive licensee is statutorily entitled to maintain an infringement action and seek interim relief. Consequently, objections to the failure to include the original owner were held insufficient to defeat the suit at the interlocutory stage.
The defendants also challenged the enforceability of PPL's rights by alleging that the assignment agreements annexed to the plaint were incomplete, redacted, and inadequately stamped. The Court rejected these objections, noting that PPL had provided substantial documentation electronically and had removed sensitive business information to keep it confidential. Importantly, the Court also said that issues of stamping and admissibility under the Stamp Act arise at the stage of evidence and do not stop the court from granting interim relief. The Court held that it cannot be permitted to undermine substantive copyright enforcement at the threshold.
The defendants also argued that PPL's licensing fees were unreasonable. They referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in Al Hamd Tradenation vs Phonographic Performance Ltd., which dealt with compulsory licensing under Section 31 of the Copyright Act. The Bombay High Court distinguished this decision, holding that proceedings under Section 31 cannot be used as a shield against an infringement action. The Court observed that such a defence implicitly acknowledges the plaintiff's copyright ownership, thereby weakening the defendants' denial of PPL's rights.
The Court found that PPL had established a strong prima facie case of infringement, supported by affidavits and evidence of unauthorised public performance across multiple establishments. The defendants could not show any legal right to play the sound recordings in public. Because of the size of the operations and the risk of ongoing infringement, the Court decided that the balance of convenience was in PPL's favour and that denying interim protection would cause irreparable harm.
Accordingly, the Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, and all persons acting on their behalf from publicly performing or communicating sound recordings from PPL's repertoire without obtaining a valid public performance licence.
Significance of the Decision
This decision strengthens the enforcement of copyright in sound recordings against unauthorised public performances, especially in the hospitality and entertainment industries. It clarifies that exclusive licensees have statutory standing to enforce copyright without registering as a copyright society, and that technical objections cannot defeat legitimate claims at the interim stage. Overall, the ruling boosts copyright enforcement in India and shows that unauthorised public performances will prompt swift court action.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
