Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd v. Haridwar Cables Network

1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyright, damages, rendition of accounts etc..

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that summons in the suit were issued vide order dated 23.12.2015, when an ex parte ad interim injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Counsel further submits that summons was duly served on the defendant, however, none was present on behalf of the defendant on 08.02.2016 and 23.05.2016; accordingly on the second date, the defendant was proceeded ex parte. The plaintiff has also filed the ex parte evidence of Mr. S.K. Dutta, PW-1 and Mr. Mohit Sharma, PW-2.

3. As per the plaint, the plaintiff company was initially established as a private limited company, Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd., in the year 1983; it became a deemed public limited company under the 2016:DHC:7218 Companies Act in the year 1988-89 and thereafter on 11.06.2014, the company was converted to a private limited company.

4. The plaintiff company has been engaged in the business of producing and marketing audio cassettes, video cassettes, compact discs, televisions, CD players etc., all sold under the brand ‘T-SERIES‟. Apart from its music label, the plaintiff has further widened the scope of its offering and ventured into the business of film production and distribution. The plaintiff is, thus, the owner of a large repertoire of copyright works comprising inter-alia of cinematographic films, sound recordings and underlying musical and literary works, which are its most precious assets. T-SERIES has over 20,000 hindi film and nonfilm songs and around 50,000 songs in regional languages to its credit. Its vast repertoire adds up to tens of thousands of hours of invaluable music, which is expanding every single day.

5. As per the plaint, the plaintiff has a number of exclusive recording arrangements with some of the well-known artists/singers and has also initiated „Music Bank‟, the first in the country, which is a storehouse of old and new titles. The plaintiff also has state-of-the-art facilities for the purpose of recording music and is arguably the largest promoter of new talent in India, with several stars of today starting their careers with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also launched and/or promoted many songwriters, Music-Directors and video directors. The plaintiff has even established a film production division, widening the scope of its offerings to the public.

6. As per the plaint, the plaintiff acquires copyright in all the literary, musical and other works which it commissions and manages through assignments from the authors or other prior owners of copyright in the same. Further, as producer thereof the plaintiff is itself the corporate author of and the first owner of copyright in those sound recordings and audio visual works (cinematograph films) which the plaintiff itself produces by taking the initiative and responsibility for the same. The plaintiff‟s repertoire is easily identified by the public, since all the CDs/DVDs/VCDs, apart from T-Series logo, contain the following copyright notice as required under Section 52A of the Copyright Act at the bottom of the CD/VCDs/DVDs, respectively: “ & ……….. Manufactured at Noida (U.P) by SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LIMITED, E-2/16, White House,Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110 002 (INDIA) All rights of the producer and the owner of the recorded work reserved. Unauthorized copying, public performance, broadcasting, usage, publishing adapting, synchronization, hiring or rental of this recording prohibited. Offenders shall be liable to damages and prosecution. Tel.:0120-2515102, 2515116, 2515117, 2515118. Fax: 0091-1202515110 & 2515121.”

7. The plaintiff‟s business activities also include giving licenses to various organizations for the use of its repertoire of copyrighted works comprising of cinematograph films, sound recordings and underlying musical and /or literary works.

8. The plaintiff has been diligent in protecting its intellectual property rights by filing various suits in different courts against Multi System Operators/ Ground Cable Network Operators. Details of such cases have been extracted in para 17 of the plaint.

9. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is a ground cable operator carrying on its business of providing cable television services under the logo ‘HCN/MOVIE EXPRESS’ to various subscribers having operation throughout India including the state of Uttarakhand including Haridwar. The defendant is broadcasting/communicating to the public sound recordings, underlying works (lyrics and musical compositions) and audio visual songs (cinematograph films) and other works of the plaintiff, through its cable network under the logo ‘HCN/MOVIE EXPRESS’, without any licence. The plaintiff, in the course of random monitoring of the defendant‟s channels, had stumbled upon the infringing broadcasts. Recordings of the infringing broadcasts were made by one Mr. Mohit Sharma, under instructions from the plaintiff on 5th November 2015. The plaintiff was able to detect various instances of infringement by the Defendant through their cable network, wherein sound recordings, cinematograph films and underlying literary and musical works belonging to the plaintiff‟s repertoire of audio-visual songs „Main Hoon Hero Tera‟ from the film „Hero‟; „Nachda‟ from the film „Phantom‟; „Phir Bhi yeh Zindagi‟ from the film „Dil Dhadakne Do‟; „Khoya Khoya‟ from the film „Hero‟; „Tu Chahiye‟ from the film „Bajrangi Bhaijaan‟ etc. were communicated to the public, without the plaintiff‟s permission or license.

10. On coming to know that the defendant was broadcasting/ communicating to the public the plaintiff‟s copyright works, the plaintiff‟s representative contacted the defendant informing the defendant about the plaintiff‟s public performance licensing scheme under the name of “T-Series Public Performance License (TPPL)” and the necessity of obtaining a license for making such broadcasts legal.

11. Thereafter, the plaintiff addressed a letter to the defendant dated 12.11.2015, informing it about the plaintiff‟s rights and the necessity of obtaining a license from the plaintiff in order to make their broadcasts legal. However, the defendant chose not to reply to the said letter. The plaintiff addressed another legal notice/ cease and desist notice dated 27.11.2015 to the defendant specifically detailing the instances of infringement and stating that it should cease all further broadcasts. As per the plaintiff, both the letter dated 12.11.2015 and the notice dated 27.11.2015 were duly served upon the defendant; but the defendant contumaciously continued to infringe copyright of the plaintiff.

12. It is the case of the plaintiff that such unlicensed broadcasts of the plaintiff‟s work by the defendant on their cable television network amounts to an infringement of the plaintiff‟s copyright. Since the notices of the plaintiff have been ignored, plaintiff has been constrained to file the present suit. The plaintiff has submitted that the defendant has about seventy thousand connections and the license fee for cable operator is Rs. 18/- per month per household and therefore, the damages are conservatively calculated at Rs. 1 crore.

13. The plaintiff in the suit seeks a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from, inter alia, engaging in public performance/communication to the public, reproduction, recording, distributing, broadcasting or otherwise publishing or exploiting any cinematographic films, sound recordings, literary works or musical works in which the plaintiff owns the copyright

14. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and also examined the affidavits by way of evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, who have deposed on the lines of the plaint. Despite service, the defendant has decided not to contest the suit and has been accordingly proceeded ex parte. The documents exhibited are as follows:  Certificate of incorporation has been exhibited as Exhibit PW-1/1;  Minutes of meeting dated 16.06.2014 has been exhibited as Exhibit PW-1/2;  Decisions rendered against Multi System Operators/Ground Cable Network Operators have been exhibited as Exhibit PW-1/3;  Affidavit of Mr. Mohit Sharma along with the compact Disc/DVD containing the recording of infringing broadcasts on 5th November 2015 has been exhibited as Exhibit PW-1/4;  Letter dated 12th November 2015 sent on behalf of plaintiff to defendant along with the registered AD slip along with the internet delivery report has been exhibited as Exhibit PW-1/5(colly);  Legal Notice dated 27th November 2015 sent on behalf of plaintiff to defendant along with the Registered AD slip along with the internet delivery report has been exhibited as Exhibit PW- 1/6(colly);  Rate card of the plaintiff has been exhibited as Exhibit PW-1/7;  The copies of Assignment deeds and license agreements have been exhibited as Exhibit PW-1/8A to Exhibit PW-1/8D;  CD/DVD recordings of the infringing broadcasts made on 5th November 2015 has been exhibited as Exhibit PW-2/1;  Cue-sheets containing details of infringing broadcasts such as time of recording, film/album belonging to the Plaintiff‟s repertoire, duration of infringement has been exhibited as Exhibit PW-2/2;  Screenshots of some of the infringing broadcasts on 5th November 2015 has been exhibited as Exhibit PW-2/3;  Receipt of Stay at Sai Kripa Paying Guest House, Haridwar where the investigator, Mr. Mohit Sharma stayed for the purpose of making recordings on 5th November 2015 has been exhibited as Exhibit PW-2/4.

15. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that unlicensed use of the plaintiff‟s works by the defendant on their cable television network amounts to infringement of the plaintiff‟s copyright. It is further submitted that the defendant is blatantly using the works of the plaintiff without the prior permission or licence and is causing enormous loss of revenue to the plaintiff. The plaintiff states that the defendant in is using the plaintiff‟s works for the purposes of generating revenue from its cable television subscribers at the expense of the plaintiff‟s statutory rights. In support of this contention, counsel has relied upon decisions of this court rendered in the case of Super Cassettes Industries v. Badshah Internet Service Pvt Ltd & Anr., CS (COMM) 591/2016 dated 06.09.2016, Super Cassettes Industries v. Maury Diginet Pvt Ltd, CS (OS) 2449/2012 dated 15.07.2015 and Super Cassettes v. Rachana TV, CS (OS) 1742/2009 dated 13.05.2013.