[The post is co-authored by Deepali Vashist and Praharsh Gour. Deepali is a third-year law student at NLSIU Bangalore. Her passion lies in understanding the intersections of AI regulation and intellectual property rights. Her previous post can be accessed here.]
In an attention-grabbing flip of occasions, the Bombay Excessive Court docket on 12th November 2024, granted an quia timet interim injunction towards the Sports activities Authority of India (SAI), a authorities physique, restraining it from unauthorized use of Phonographic Efficiency Restricted (PPL)’s sound recordings for the event- “Horn OK Please” on November 16 and 17. PPL alleged that SAI used its recordings with out authorization at a earlier occasion as nicely which was organized on the identical venue- Jawaharlal Nehru Sports activities Stadium. It was submitted that regardless of the PPL’s a number of stop and desist notices, SAI neither responded to its notices nor addressed the alleged infringement. Thus, PPL was apprehensive that with out an interim injunction, SAI would as soon as once more infringe its copyright. The only-judge bench comprising Justice R. I. Chagla, noticed that there was a prima facie case of infringement made out towards SAI and their lack of response justified the grant of fast reduction to PPL. Consequently, the Court docket granted an interim injunction barring SAI from taking part in PPL’s sound recordings at upcoming occasions with out securing a license.
This isn’t the primary time a authorities physique has discovered itself on the improper facet of mental property regulation. In Anand Patwardhan v. Director Basic, Directorate Basic of Doordarshan and Others, the Bombay Excessive Court docket held Doordarshan, a government-owned public service broadcaster, responsible of infringing the plaintiff’s copyright in a documentary movie titled “Waves of Revolution” by lifting varied extracts from the swimsuit movie and inserting them within the impugned movie broadcast.
Curiously, after wanting up the “Horn OK Please” occasion, one can see that its organizer is “So Delhi”, which doesn’t appear to be related to the Sports activities Authority of India (no less than as per their web site).
This might contradict PPL’s argument that SAI was “organizing” the occasion and in addition makes one surprise why was “So Delhi” not impleaded as a celebration (as evident from the case particulars under).
Additionally, the overall phrases for reserving a stadium below SAI states that it’s the organizer’s accountability for acquiring a license (i.e. So Delhi on this case). This brings up one other set of questions- what if “So Delhi” has already obtained a license from PPL? Shouldn’t the Court docket have inquired or raised an alarm concerning the precise organizer of “Horn OK Please” and whether or not they have obtained the mandatory licenses? What’s going to this imply for the scheduled occasions at SAI, particularly in these instances the place the organizers have already procured a license?