Referring to Sections 54 and 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the Bombay High Court clarified that the exclusive licensees are entitled to maintain an action for infringement of copyright. Since the plaintiff has established the foundation for an apprehended violation of copyright, and the defendants are found to have been operating about 94 establishments by infringing the plaintiff’s copyright, the Court held that such continuing infringement would result in loss and damage to the plaintiff.
The Court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of infringement, supported by an affidavit on oath detailing specific instances of unauthorised broadcasting. Thus, the balance of convenience was held to be in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from publicly performing or communicating the sound recordings owned by the plaintiff without obtaining a non-exclusive public performance license.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh found the objection regarding incomplete agreements to be irrelevant at the interim stage. It noted the plaintiff’s pleading that all agreements were available on a compact disc and on its website, which the defendant admitted to have perused. The Bench thus accepted the use of a redacted agreement to protect confidential information, citing a similar finding in a previous case.
On the issue of unstamped agreements, the Bench observed that Section 34 of the Stamp Act creates an embargo on the admissibility of a document in evidence, a stage which had not yet been reached. At the interim stage, an unstamped agreement does not create an obstacle in the consideration of the prayer for interim relief.
The Bench also noted that the defence of unreasonable licensing fees cannot be pressed into service in an infringement action, as it arises from proceedings under Section 31 of the Copyright Act, which talks about compulsory licensing. Thus, the Bench agreed with the plaintiff that raising this defence amounts to an acceptance of the plaintiff’s ownership rights.
Briefly, the plaintiffs had filed suits for copyright infringement and as a quia timet action for apprehended future violations by the Defendants, who own approximately 94 restaurants. The plaintiff pleaded that it is the owner and/or exclusive licensee of the copyright in a repertoire of sound recordings, based on assignment deeds and exclusive license agreements from various music companies.
Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed the exclusive right to grant licenses for the public performance of its sound recordings under Section 30 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The core allegation is that the Defendants were unauthorisedly broadcasting the Plaintiff’s sound recordings in their establishments without obtaining the requisite license.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Sharan Jagtiani, along with Advocates Amogh Singh, Avanti, Asmant Nimbalkar, Neeraj Nawar, Shikha Dutta, and Sheryl D’Souza, for the Applicant
Advocates Sandeep Parikh and Arsalan A. Thaver, for the Defendants
