Phonographic Performance Limited filed commercial IP suits against Trinetra Venture and Ors owning 94 restaurants and Anoor Paripati and Ors for copyright infringement in sound recordings and quia timet action for apprehended future violations claiming ownership and exclusive licensing rights via assignments from music companies entitling it to grant public performance licenses under Section 30 of Copyright Act 1957 supported by cease and desist notices affidavits of unauthorized broadcasting during visits on specific dates and video evidence while defendants contended non-maintainability for failure to implead owners under Section 61 plaintiff not being registered society suppression of facts via non-annexure of agreements incomplete redacted sample deeds and inadequate stamping. The court reasoned following prior Bombay decisions that registration under Section 33(1) is unnecessary for owners or exclusive licensees to sue non-joinder under Section 61 is not fatal given joint cause as owner and licensee and court's discretion unstamped deeds' admissibility arises at evidence stage under Stamp Act Section 34 redacted samples and full deeds on CD/website suffice prima facie unreasonable fees no defense absent Section 31 compulsory license proceedings implying rights admission infringement established by unchallenged affidavit tilting balance favoring plaintiff against continuing loss. The court granted interim injunction restraining defendants from public performance or communication of plaintiff's repertoire without license pending suit disposal.
- An owner or exclusive licensee of copyright in sound recordings is entitled to maintain an infringement action and grant licenses under Section 30 of the Copyright Act, 1957, without registration as a copyright society under Section 33(1) [Phonographic Performance Limited vs Trinetra Venture and Ors., Interim Application (L) No. 36005 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 668 of 2025, Para 10].
- Non-joinder of the copyright owner under Section 61 does not bar interim relief when the plaintiff sues in dual capacity as owner and exclusive licensee, with the court having discretion to dispense with joinder, and Section 54 includes exclusive licensee within "owner of copyright" for civil remedies under Section 55 [Phonographic Performance Limited vs Trinetra Venture and Ors., Interim Application (L) No. 36005 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 668 of 2025, Para 12].
- Unstamped assignment deeds do not preclude consideration for ad-interim relief, as their admissibility in evidence under Section 34 of the Stamp Act is determined at the trial stage [Phonographic Performance Limited vs Trinetra Venture and Ors., Interim Application (L) No. 36005 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 668 of 2025, Para 14].
- Redacted sample agreements annexed to the plaint, with full voluminous deeds provided on compact disk and hosted on the plaintiff's website, are sufficient to establish a prima facie case at the interim stage without requiring physical annexure to avoid burdening court records [Phonographic Performance Limited vs Trinetra Venture and Ors., Interim Application (L) No. 36005 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 668 of 2025, Para 13].
- Allegations of unreasonable licensing fees or refusal to license do not constitute a defense to copyright infringement unless pursued via compulsory licensing under Section 31, and such plea implies admission of the plaintiff's ownership rights [Phonographic Performance Limited vs Trinetra Venture and Ors., Interim Application (L) No. 36005 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 668 of 2025, Para 15].
Case Title: PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED VS TRINETRA VENTURE AND ORS. Order date: 24.12.2025 Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 36005 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 668 OF 2025 Neutral Citation: Not Available Name of court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay Name of Judge: Sharmila U. Deshmukh J.
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation] [Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]
