Delhi High Court restrains Mamagoto, Dhaba, Sly Granny from playing PPL's songs

The Delhi High Court recently restored an interim order restraining Azure Hospitality Private Limited, which runs several restaurants including Mamagoto, Dhaba and Sly Granny, from playing songs owned by Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) at restaurant premises [PPL vs Azure Hospitality Private Limited & Ors]..Justice Amit Bansal found that PPL had made out a prima facie case that Azure had been violating PPL's copyright by playing these songs without authorisation or any licence at the restaurant outlets.“The act of the defendants of playing the sound recordings in their restaurants/bars, for which the plaintiff holds the copyright would, on a prima facie view, amount to infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright in terms of Section 51 of the Copyrights Act,” the Court said. .PPL is a copyright collective that is in the business of issuing licences for publicly playing songs (sound recordings) after the copyright over these songs are assigned to it by music record labels. It owns the public performance rights of 400+ music labels, with more than 4 million international and domestic sound recordings.In 2022, PPL approached the Delhi High Court, accusing Azure - which runs around 86 restaurants/ outlets - of violating the copyrights owned by PPL by playing PPL-owned songs without any authorisation. After visiting restaurants run by Azure, PPL said that it found its sound recordings being played without taking any license from PPL. The Court had earlier granted an interim injunction in favour of PPL in 2022 itself, but it was suspended on grounds of concealment of a parallel suit in Mumbai..However, when the matter was taken up later, the High Court noted that the case in Mumbai had a different cause of action and had since been withdrawn for being infructuous. Therefore, on March 3, the Court again restrained Azure again from playing any PPL songs on the premises of its restaurants until a final decision is delivered on PPL's copyright suit."The defendants, its directors, partners or proprietors, licensees, assigns, officers, servants, agents, representatives, contractors, sister concerns and any other person working for and on behalf of the defendants from doing any act including exploitation/use of the plaintiff’s copyrighted works in any of its outlets till the final adjudication of the suit," the Court ordered. .Notably, the Court also rejected Azure's argument that PPL could not claim any right over these songs since it was no longer a registered copyright society. The Court was told that after an amendment to the Copyright Act, there was a statutory requirement for all the registered copyright societies to re-register themselves. Therefore, PPL too had de-registered itself. However, it had not renewed its registration thereafter as a copyright society. As such, Azure argued that PPL could not claim that it has a right to issue licences for the songs in question..PPL maintained that it would still hold rights to the songs in its capacity as an individual owner who was given the copyright over the songs through assignment by various music companies. The Court agreed with PPL's stance and held that it can sue for copyright infringement in its individual capacity as a copyright owner, even if it is not a registered society. "Section 33 (registration of copyright society) cannot override the provisions of Section 30 (allowing copyright owners to issue licences) of the Copyright Act which gives an absolute right to an owner of the copyright to grant any interest in the copyrighted work by way of a license ...On a prima facie view, the plaintiff has established itself as the copyright owner of the ‘sound recordings’ on the basis of assignment deeds in its favour,” the Court stated. .The Court added that since PPL was not acting as an agent but as an owner/ assignee, the fact that it was yet to renew its registration as a copyright society was not relevant. "Since the plaintiff is not asserting rights in the present suit as a copyright society, the fact that the plaintiff is no longer a registered copyright society or the fact that it is seeking re-registration as a copyright society is not relevant for the adjudication of the present suit," the Court said. .Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayar and Chander M Lall with Advocates Ankur Sangal, Partner, Khaitan & Co and his team comprising Advocates Sucheta Roy (Principal Associate), Raghu Vinayak Sinha (Senior Associate), Shaurya Pandey (Associate) and Ananya Mehan appeared for PPL.Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar with Advocates S Santanam Swaminadhan, Kartik Malhotra, A Mandal, Ritik Raghuvanshi and Rishubh Agarwal appeared for Azure..[Read judgment]