The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd v. Geminicontinental

1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for, permanent injunction.restrammginfringementofcopyright,rendition ofaccountsandforrecovery ofdamages.,2. Itis the case ofthe plaintiff(i)thatthe plaintiffis acompany limited by guarantee and registered as a Copyright Society under Section 33 ofthe Copyright Act, 1957;(ii)that the members ofthe plaintiff, being authors, composers and publishers ofliterary and/or musical works, have executed Deeds of Assignment assigning public performing rights in such works, includingsuchliteraiyand musicalworkswhichthey mayproduceinfuture, in favour ofthe plaintiff; (iii) that the plaintiff is therefore the exclusive copyright owner of the public performing rights in respect of its entire repertoire ofliterary and musical works;(iv)thatthe plaintiffs repertoire is easily identified by the public and the list of plaintiffs members is pubhcally available on the plaintiffs website http://www.iprs nra;(y)that the defendant is a luxury hotel located at Eueknow, Uttar Pradesh;(vi) CS(OS)1837/2011 Page[1] of[3] 2017:DHC:9088 t atthedefendant,inordertoenhanceambienceofitshotelandtomakethe same morepleasantand customerfriendly,plays musicfrom theplaintiffs repertoire withinits publicspacesincludingrestaurants,barsetc,(vii)that the defendant also organises live performances in its hotel using the plamttffsrepertoire;(viii)thatthedefendant-therebyinfringestheplaintiffs copynght. Henee,thepresentsuit,for(A)permanentinjunctionrestraining the defendant from communicating to the public the plaintiffs repertoire comprtsing ofworksofall its members and worksofthesistersocietiesof theplaintiffwhich theplaintiffisauthorised to administerinIndia,without obtainingalicencefromtheplaintiff;(B)forrenditionofaccounts;and,(C) for damages.

3. Thesuitwasentertainedandsummonsthereoforderedtobeissuedto thedefendantand videex-panead-interim orderdatedfAugust,2011.the defendant restrained from performing or communicating to the public the plaintiffs repertoire comprising of works of all its members, without obtaining licence from the plaintiff. The said ex-parte interim order has continued till now.

4. Summons issued to the defendant were returned with the report of refiisal. None appeared for the defendant. Vide order dated O"October, 2013, the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte and the plaintiff, relegated to leading ex-parte evidence.

5. The plaintiff applied for amendment of the plaint and which was allowed on 10» February, 2014 and the suit again listed for ex-parte evidence ofthe plaintiff. CS(OS)1^37/,2011 Page2of[3]

6. Pl^tiffhasfiled affidavitby wayofexamination-in-ohiefofits hairman Mr.Hasan Kamaaland dosed its ex-parteevidence. Videorder dated24- November,2015,exemptionfrom appearanceofthesaid witness was allowed in terms of GlaxosmUhkVme Pharmaoeuticals Ltd. Vs. TheodarLaboratoriesPvt.Ltd.2006SCCOnLineDel1679.

7. The counselfortheplaintiffhas been heard.

8. The counsel for the plaintiff has relied on my order dated 26"^ October,-2016 in CS(OS)No.1023/2007 titled Indian Performing Right SocietyLtd. Vs. Vijay Verma&Anr.whereby the defendants therein were restrainedfrom playing music/songsintheirpremisesorfrom allowingany other person to play music/songs in their premises, without a licence or permission from the plaintiff or from whosoever may be holding the copyrighttherein andseeksdisposalofthissuitalso onsameterms.

9. Allowed.

10. A decree is passed, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, restraining the defendant from playing music/songs in its premises or from allowing any other person to play music/songs in its premises, without a licence or permission from the plaintiff or from whosoever may be holdingthecopyrighttherein,and leavingthe partiesto bear their own costs. ^. Decree sheet be drawn up.

DECEMBER 05,2017 bs.. CS(OS)1837/2011 RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW,J. Page3of[3]