This case filed by Al Hamd Tradenation (Al Hamd), against Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), pertains to a dispute regarding the use of sound recordings owned by PPL in an event planned by Al Hamd and a petition for grant of a compulsory license under Section 31 of the Copyright Act.
Petitioner’s Contentions
Al Hamd:
- Sought a compulsory license under Section 31 of the Copyright Act, 1957;
- Claimed that the license fees demanded by PPL for the use of its sound recordings were unreasonable;
- Argued that PPL’s fee structure, which was common regardless of the number of attendees at an event;
- Contended that charging common fees irrespective of the size of the audience lacked justification and deprived the public of access to the sound recordings;
- Stated that unreasonable fees also amounted to a refusal of public performance rights; and
- Compared PPL’s fees with that of its competitors, arguing that the fees were excessive and unreasonable.
Respondent’s Contentions
PPL countered that:
- It had over 100,000 licensees paying the same fees, and its business model relied on the revenue from these licenses;
- This case was not maintainable under Section 31(1)(a), as this section applies only to cases where there was a refusal of public performance rights, which had not occurred;
- An issue regarding license fees under Section 31(1)(b) could only be raised by broadcasters and not by entities like the petitioner herein;
- According to the case of Pune Video Theatres Association Versus Cinemaster, if there was no refusal there is no refusal to allow the public performance of the copyrighted work, the petition is not maintainable.
Court’s Observations
The Court noted that in a connected suit CS (Comm.) 564/2024, before the same Court, Al Hamd was already granted liberty to approach PPL to obtain a license for an event scheduled on July 14, 2024, with the payment of the demanded fees. It was clarified that this was merely an interim measure, without prejudice to the ongoing litigation. PPL also expressed no objection to granting a voluntary license to the Al Hamd for the same.
Order
The Court, after hearing both sides, did not make a final decision on the reasonableness of the fees. The Court also left all issues, including the petition’s maintainability, open for future consideration and scheduled the next hearing for a future date.
Citation: Al Hamd Tradenation v. Phonographic Performance Ltd., C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 8/2024, High Court of Delhi on 12th July, 2024. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/139468197/
Authored by Kavya Sadashivan, IP Innovation, Consulting & Strategy Team, BananaIP Counsels.
Disclaimer
The case note/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.
If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with an IP expert/attorney, please reach us at: contact@bananaip.com or 91-80-26860414/24/34.
