Phonographic Performance Limited secures interim relief against Trinetra Venture for unauthorized broadcasting of sound recordings.
In a significant ruling on December 24, 2025, the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, granted interim relief to Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) in a copyright infringement case against Trinetra Venture and others. The case revolved around the unauthorized broadcasting of sound recordings by Trinetra Venture, which operates approximately 94 establishments, without acquiring the necessary licenses from PPL.
PPL, the plaintiff, claimed ownership and exclusive licensee rights over a repertoire of sound recordings through assignment deeds and exclusive agreements with various music companies. The plaintiff alleged that Trinetra Venture's actions constituted copyright infringement, prompting the need for legal intervention.
The court addressed several key issues, including the plaintiff's right to maintain an infringement suit without being a registered copyright society under Section 33(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Justice Deshmukh ruled in favor of PPL, stating that an exclusive licensee is entitled to seek relief for copyright infringement without registration as a copyright society. This interpretation aligns with Sections 54 and 55 of the Copyright Act, which recognize an exclusive licensee as an "owner of copyright" for maintaining infringement actions.
The court also considered the defendants' objections regarding the non-impleadment of the copyright owner. The court clarified that Section 61 of the Copyright Act provides discretion to dispense with the requirement of impleading the owner if the exclusive licensee has a joint cause of action. Thus, the non-impleadment did not bar the suit's institution.
Additionally, the court dismissed the defendants' argument that an unreasonable licensing fee structure could serve as a defense against the infringement action. Justice Deshmukh emphasized that Section 31 of the Copyright Act, pertaining to compulsory licensing, cannot be used to contest infringement claims, and the defendants' reliance on this argument implicitly admitted the plaintiff's ownership of the copyright.
The court found prima facie evidence of infringement by the defendants, supported by affidavits and documented unauthorized broadcasts of copyrighted sound recordings. Given the balance of convenience and potential loss and damage to the plaintiff, the court granted interim relief, restraining the defendants from further unauthorized use of the copyrighted works.
This ruling reinforces the legal standing of exclusive licensees in copyright matters, affirming their rights to enforce infringement actions and seek judicial remedies.
Bottom Line:
Copyright Law - Exclusive licensee entitled to seek relief for copyright infringement without being registered as a copyright society under Section 33(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 30, 33(1), 54, 55, 61 of the Copyright Act, 1957
Phonographic Performance Limited v. Trinetra Venture, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2833405
