Phonographic Performance Limited Vs. Azure Hospitality Private Limited :Section 33 of the Copyright Act does not bar owners from issuing licenses independently.
Introduction: The case revolves around the alleged infringement of copyright by Azure Hospitality Private Limited and its associated entities by playing copyrighted sound recordings owned by Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) without obtaining the necessary licenses. PPL, as an assignee of public performance rights from various record labels, sought a permanent injunction and damages against Azure Hospitality for unauthorized usage of its copyrighted works.
Detailed Factual Background: PPL is a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013, and is engaged in issuing licenses for the public performance of sound recordings. PPL has been assigned public performance rights by multiple music labels, making it the exclusive entity to license such rights.
Azure Hospitality operates multiple restaurants and bars across India, including brands such as 'Mamagoto,' 'Dhaba,' and 'Sly Granny.' PPL conducted investigations at various outlets of Azure Hospitality on multiple occasions and found that the defendants were playing PPL’s copyrighted sound recordings without obtaining a license. PPL subsequently issued a cease-and-desist notice on July 20, 2022, which the defendants ignored. Further inspections on October 12, 2022, confirmed continued infringement, leading to the present lawsuit.
Detailed Procedural Background: PPL initially filed a commercial suit against Azure Hospitality before the Bombay High Court (Suit No. 29686 of 2021), but later withdrew it without liberty to refile. In the present suit, PPL sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from playing its copyrighted works without a license, along with damages. On October 14, 2022, an ex-parte ad interim injunction was granted in favor of PPL, restraining Azure Hospitality from playing the copyrighted sound recordings.
Azure Hospitality subsequently filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, seeking vacation of the ex-parte injunction, arguing that PPL lacked standing as it was not a registered copyright society.
Issues Involved in the Case:
Whether PPL, as an assignee of public performance rights, had the right to license and enforce copyrights in sound recordings?
Whether the suit was barred under Order XXIII Rule 1(4)(b) CPC due to the withdrawal of the previous suit before the Bombay High Court?
Whether PPL was acting as an owner or as a copyright society, and if the latter, whether it was barred from issuing licenses under Section 33 of the Copyright Act?
Whether Azure Hospitality’s use of PPL’s sound recordings without a license constituted copyright infringement?
Whether PPL's omission of the Bombay suit in its pleadings amounted to material suppression?
Detailed Submission of Parties:
Submissions on Behalf of the Plaintiff (PPL):
PPL, being an assignee of public performance rights, is the owner under Section 18 of the Copyright Act and has exclusive rights to issue licenses.
Section 33 of the Copyright Act applies to copyright societies, whereas PPL operates as an owner and can grant licenses under Section 30.
PPL had filed the present suit based on a fresh cause of action, arising from the continuous unauthorized use of copyrighted sound recordings, and hence, was not barred by the withdrawal of the Bombay suit.
Precedents such as Novex Communication v. Lemon Tree Hotels and Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Canvas Communication support the right of an owner to issue licenses and enforce copyrights.
Submissions on Behalf of the Defendants (Azure Hospitality):
PPL was conducting the business of issuing licenses as a copyright society without proper registration, violating Section 33 of the Copyright Act.
The present suit was barred under Order XXIII Rule 1(4)(b) CPC due to PPL’s withdrawal of a similar suit in the Bombay High Court.
The interpretation in Novex Communications v. DXC Technology by the Madras High Court supported the argument that only a registered copyright society can grant licenses.
PPL had failed to establish irreparable injury, as any damages could be compensated monetarily.
Detailed Discussion on Judgments Cited and Their Context:
Novex Communication v. Lemon Tree Hotels (2019 SCC OnLine Del 6568) – Held that an owner of copyright can issue licenses independently of a copyright society.
Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Canvas Communication – Reinforced that copyright owners retain licensing rights unless they have assigned them exclusively to a copyright society.
Novex Communications v. Trade Wings Hotel (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 252) – Affirmed that an assignee of public performance rights has ownership and can issue licenses.
Novex Communications v. DXC Technology (2021 SCC OnLine Mad 6266) – Contrarily held that copyright licensing can only be done by a registered copyright society.
Leopold Café v. Novex Communications (2014 SCC OnLine Bom 4801) – Restrained Novex from issuing licenses without disclosing agency status, but not applicable as PPL acted as an owner.
Entertainment Network India v. Super Cassette Industries (2008) 13 SCC 30 – Stressed balancing public interest and copyright protection but was related to compulsory licensing.
Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:
The Bombay suit withdrawal did not bar the present suit as it was based on a fresh cause of action due to ongoing infringement.
PPL, as an assignee of public performance rights, became the owner under Section 18 of the Copyright Act and could issue licenses under Section 30.
The argument that PPL needed to be a registered copyright society to issue licenses was rejected, in line with Novex v. Lemon Tree and Trade Wings judgments.
PPL’s failure to disclose the Bombay suit was not material suppression since it was withdrawn without liberty to refile.
Azure Hospitality’s continued use of copyrighted works without a license amounted to prima facie infringement under Section 51 of the Copyright Act.
Balance of convenience favored PPL, as an injunction would not disrupt Azure Hospitality’s core business, but continued infringement would irreparably harm PPL.
Final Decision: The court granted a permanent injunction restraining Azure Hospitality from playing PPL’s copyrighted works without a license. The interim injunction was upheld, and the defendants’ application for vacation was dismissed.
Law Settled in This Case:
Copyright owners (including assignees) retain the right to issue licenses unless they exclusively assign them to a copyright society.
Section 33 of the Copyright Act does not bar owners from issuing licenses independently.
Withdrawal of a prior suit does not bar a fresh suit if based on a new or continuing cause of action.
Playing copyrighted sound recordings in commercial establishments without a license constitutes infringement.
A copyright owner need not be a registered copyright society to enforce its rights or issue licenses.
