Introduction:

In a recent copyright case that may impact Delhi’s popular food and music festival “Horn Ok Please,” the Bombay High Court issued an interim injunction against the Sports Authority of India (SAI) on November 12, 2024. The injunction restrains SAI from playing any sound recordings owned by Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) without securing a proper license. Justice Riyaz Chagla of the Bombay High Court issued the order as part of a commercial suit filed by PPL, which sought legal action against SAI for allegedly infringing on copyright laws by playing its music without prior permission. This interim decision comes ahead of the Horn Ok Please festival, scheduled to be held at SAI’s Jawaharlal Nehru Sports Stadium in New Delhi on November 16 and 17, highlighting the ongoing legal importance of obtaining music licenses for public performances.

Case Background:

PPL, which owns licensing rights to various sound recordings, had previously approached the court against SAI, alleging that the organization played music recordings under its control at earlier events without obtaining the necessary permissions. The current injunction aims to prevent SAI from playing PPL-owned music at the upcoming Horn Ok Please event, which is expected to draw large audiences to celebrate food, music, and culture.

PPL’s complaint cited a prior incident, specifically an event held at the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium on September 28 and 29, 2024, during which SAI allegedly used PPL’s licensed music without a proper license. PPL claims it sent cease and desist notices to SAI on September 7 and November 8 to demand compliance with copyright laws, but SAI reportedly failed to respond to these notices.

Arguments by Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL):

PPL, represented by Advocates Amogh Singh, Asmant Nimbalkar, Neeraj Nawar, Mrunmayee Nagar, and Anil Kumar Singh, presented the following key points in their arguments:

• Infringement of Copyright Laws: PPL argued that SAI had used its sound recordings at previous events without obtaining the required licensing rights, a clear violation of copyright under Indian law. PPL contended that by playing its recordings without authorization, SAI infringed upon its rights as a copyright owner and license issuer, which legally grants them exclusive rights over the performance and distribution of the recordings in question.

• Failure to Obtain License Despite Cease and Desist Notices: PPL highlighted that it had issued cease and desist notices on two occasions: first on September 7 and then again on November 8. These notices were intended to formally warn SAI to stop unauthorized public performances of PPL’s sound recordings. However, PPL contended that SAI ignored these warnings, demonstrating a disregard for the copyright holders’ rights and obligations as defined under Indian copyright law.

• Legal Grounds for Interim Injunction: PPL sought an interim injunction to prevent SAI from further using its sound recordings without permission, especially for the upcoming Horn Ok Please Festival. PPL argued that SAI’s continued unauthorized use of its copyrighted music recordings would further violate its legal rights, damage its business interests, and create a precedent for unauthorized music usage by other public organizations. PPL also cited a pattern of unauthorized use by SAI, justifying the need for immediate legal intervention.

• Impact on Intellectual Property Rights: Emphasizing the broader impact on intellectual property rights in India, PPL claimed that SAI’s actions undermined the efforts of rights organizations to protect and promote intellectual property. PPL contended that by infringing upon copyrighted works without a license, SAI was setting a negative precedent for public institutions, which could weaken the enforcement of copyright laws across the country.

Arguments by the Sports Authority of India (SAI):

• SAI did not submit a formal response during the interim proceedings and was not represented by counsel at the initial hearing. Consequently, SAI’s counter-arguments, if any, are yet to be presented. However, based on typical defences in similar cases, SAI may potentially argue the following points:

• Public Interest and Accessibility: SAI could argue that its events are public functions that aim to support community engagement, recreation, and cultural exposure. Therefore, requiring license fees for every piece of music played could financially burden state authorities. SAI might also argue that its public service mandate includes facilitating cultural events, which should not be subjected to excessive legal or financial constraints.

• Challenges in License Acquisition: SAI may contend that there were practical challenges involved in securing licenses from PPL before the event. Public authorities often face procedural delays in acquiring permissions, especially for large-scale events. SAI may argue that these delays impacted its ability to comply with PPL’s requirements before the music was played.

• Compliance with Cease and Desist Notices: SAI may provide evidence or statements showing that they were in the process of addressing PPL’s cease and desist notices and that any delay was unintentional or due to administrative factors. SAI might further argue that it intends to cooperate fully with PPL to resolve the licensing issue in the future.

• Non-Commercial Nature of the Event: SAI may argue that the Horn Ok Please festival is a non-commercial event aimed at promoting community and cultural engagement, as opposed to generating profit. This could potentially serve as a basis for requesting leniency in the licensing requirements. SAI might argue that such events should be treated differently from commercial activities and that requiring a full commercial music license places undue financial pressure on public institutions hosting cultural gatherings.

Court’s Findings and Interim Order:

After considering the arguments presented by PPL and reviewing the evidence, Justice Riyaz Chagla ruled in favor of PPL’s request for an interim injunction. The court issued the following key points in its ruling:

• Prima Facie Evidence of Copyright Infringement: The court observed that PPL had successfully established a prima facie case of copyright infringement against SAI. By playing PPL-owned recordings without securing a license, SAI was found to violate copyright law, which grants PPL the exclusive right to authorize the public performance of its sound recordings. The court emphasized that this infringement was substantial, given the recurring pattern of unauthorized use highlighted by PPL.

• Need for an Injunction to Prevent Further Violations: The court agreed with PPL’s contention that without an injunction, SAI would likely continue infringing upon PPL’s copyright at the upcoming Horn Ok Please festival. The court noted that SAI’s past conduct and its failure to respond to the cease and desist notices warranted urgent judicial intervention. Justice Chagla emphasized that the festival, scheduled to take place on November 16-17, 2024, provided a pressing reason to enforce the copyright protections.

• Failure to Comply with Cease and Desist Notices: The court noted that SAI had disregarded PPL’s cease and desist notices from both September and November 2024. This failure to address the copyright concerns further justified the court’s decision to grant an injunction. Justice Chagla remarked that the lack of response demonstrated an apparent disregard for intellectual property rights, thereby strengthening the case for immediate legal action.

• Order to Cease Use of PPL’s Music Without a License: Justice Chagla ordered that until a final decision on the case is reached, SAI, along with its employees, contractors, event organizers, and associated third parties, is restrained from publicly performing or using any sound recordings licensed to PPL without obtaining the necessary license. The court specified that SAI must secure a non-exclusive public performance license from PPL if it intends to use its music for the Horn Ok Please festival or any other future events.

• Broader Implications of the Order:

This ruling reinforces the importance of copyright compliance, particularly for public institutions organizing large-scale events. By granting this injunction, the court underscored that even government-affiliated organizations are obligated to uphold copyright protections and seek proper licenses for publicly performed content. The ruling also highlights the broader role of copyright laws in supporting creators and the intellectual property market in India. For PPL, this order represents a significant victory, affirming its authority to enforce licensing requirements and defend the intellectual property rights of artists and producers.

For SAI and other public institutions, the ruling could signal a need for greater diligence in obtaining necessary permissions before playing music at events. Failure to comply with copyright laws may result in similar legal consequences, adding potential legal and financial risks to public events.

• Future Proceedings:

The case is scheduled for further hearing on November 28, 2024, when SAI may present its counterarguments or negotiate a resolution with PPL. Pending the final outcome, SAI is required to adhere to the interim order, potentially influencing its approach to event management and music licensing in the future.