No Reason To Disbelieve Infringement Plea: Bombay High Court Restrains 94 Restaurants From Publicly Performing Music Of PPL
The Bombay High Court said that the Defendants are operating about 94 establishments and continuing infringement would result in loss and damage to the Plaintiff.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has restrained 94 restaurants from publicly performing music of Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL).
A Suit was filed for infringement of copyright and quia-timet action for apprehended future violation by the Defendants.
A Single Bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed, “The Defendants have not able to demonstrate any entitlement to broadcast the Plaintiff’s copyrighted sound recordings. Prima facie, there is no reason to disbelieve the plea of infringement, which is supported by affidavit on oath. As the Defendants have prima facie infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright, the Plaintiff has established the foundation for apprehended violation of copyright.”
The Bench said 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.
Senior Advocate Sharan Jagtiani appeared for the Applicant, while Advocate Sandeep Parikh appeared for the Defendants.
Brief Facts
The Plaintiff had pleaded that it is the owner/exclusive licensee of the copyright in the sound recordings in its repertoire on the basis of assignment deeds/exclusive agreements of the relevant copyrights in its favour by several music companies. The Plaintiff claimed to be exclusively entitled to grant licenses for communication to the public/public performance of its repertoire of sound recordings under Section 30 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The Suit was initiated as the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant who are the owners of about 94 restaurants, without obtaining the license from the Plaintiff as contemplated under Section 30 of the Copyright Act, are unauthorisedly broadcasting the Plaintiff’s sound recordings infringing the Plaintiff’s copyright.
Court’s Observations & Directions
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “The unreasonable licensing fee structure of the Plaintiff is put up as defence to the infringement action by relying on decision in Al Hamad Tradenation v. Phonographic Performance Ltd. (supra) passed by Delhi High Court. The judgment of Delhi High Court arose out of proceedings filed under Section 31 of the Copyright Act by the Defendant therein seeking grant of compulsory license and assignment of license right. In present case, it is not the Defendant who has approached this Court under Section 31 of Copyright Act but the Plaintiff claiming infringement.”
The Court remarked that the counsel is right in submitting that Section 31 cannot be pressed in service as defence and the submission accepts the ownership right of the Plaintiff.
“In light of the above, the Plaintiff is entitled to interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a). Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Suit, the Defendants, its office bearers, partners, directors, their servants, employees, agents, assignees, licensees, representatives, third-party event management companies, or otherwise and/or any person claiming through them or acting on their behalf, are restrained from publicly performing or in any manner communicating the sound recordings assigned and exclusively licensed to the Plaintiff or allowing their premises or any other premises under their control to be used for the said purposes, without obtaining non-exclusive public performance licence from the Plaintiff, or otherwise infringing the copyright in any work owned and protected by the Plaintiff”, it directed and concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Interim Applications.
Cause Title- Phonographic Performance Limited v. Trinetra Venture and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:26530)
Appearance:
Applicant: Senior Advocate Sharan Jagtiani, Advocates Amogh Singh, Avanti, Asmant Nimbalkar, Neeraj Nawar, Shikha Dutta, Sheryl D’souza, and D.P. Singh.
Defendants: Advocates Sandeep Parikh, Arsalan A. Thaver, and Abhiraj Parab.
