Restaurant chains restrained from playing PPL music sans license across 94 outlets

Restaurant chains restrained from playing PPL music sans license across 94 outlets

The Bombay High Court noted that the defendants failed to establish any lawful entitlement to use the copyrighted sound recordings.

The Bombay High Court has restrained two restaurant operators running about 94 outlets from publicly playing music from Phonographic Performance Limited’s repertoire sans a valid licence. The interim order comes after the Court found a strong prima facie case of copyright infringement and held that continued unauthorised use would cause financial loss to PPL.

The order was pronounced by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh while allowing interim applications filed by PPL against Trinetra Venture and others, and Anoor Paripati and others. The defendants failed to establish any lawful entitlement to use the copyrighted sound recordings; the Court noted.

The Court was informed by PPL that it is the owner and exclusive licensee of copyright in a large repertoire of sound recordings. These rights flow from assignment deeds and exclusive licensing agreements executed by various music labels in its favour. PPL argued its authority to grant licences for public performance and communication of these sound recordings under the Copyright Act.

As per PPL, the restaurant operators played music from its repertoire across nearly 94 outlets without getting the required licences. Even after cease-and-desist notices, this continued. Several outlets were visited by PPL representatives who recorded instances of unauthorised use, which formed part of the material placed before the Court.

The interim relief was opposed by the restaurant operators on multiple grounds. The suits were not maintainable since the original copyright owners were not parties, they argued. PPL, not being a registered copyright society, lacked authority to issue licences, they also said. They raised allegations of suppression of facts, challenges to the validity of assignment agreements, and objections to the reasonableness of licence fees. Each of these objections was rejected by the Court which held that PPL’s right to seek relief without registration as a copyright society stands settled. On the conflicting Delhi High Court view, the Bombay High Court reportedly noted: “The contrary decision taken by the Delhi High Court would not bind this Court and judicial discipline demands that the decision of the co-ordinate Bench be followed by the subsequent bench.”

The Court further observed that questions relating to stamp duty or admissibility of documents arise at the stage of evidence and that such issues cannot defeat a claim for interim injunction. It also ruled that disputes over the reasonableness of licence fees do not operate as a defence to copyright infringement. The Court held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of PPL given the documented instances of unauthorised use across multiple outlets. Continued public performance without a licence would cause ongoing loss to the rights holder, it held.