[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 interesting turn of events, the Bombay High Court on 12th November 2024, granted an quia timet interim injunction against the Sports Authority of India (SAI), a government body, restraining it from unauthorized use of Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL)’s sound recordings for the event- “Horn OK Please” on November 16 and 17. PPL alleged that SAI used its recordings without authorization at a previous event as well which was organized at the same venue- Jawaharlal Nehru Sports Stadium. It was submitted that despite the PPL’s multiple cease and desist notices, SAI neither responded to its notices nor addressed the alleged infringement. Thus, PPL was apprehensive that without an interim injunction, SAI would once again infringe its copyright. The single-judge bench comprising Justice R. I. Chagla, observed that there was a prima facie case of infringement made out against SAI and their lack of response justified the grant of immediate relief to PPL. As a result, the Court granted an interim injunction barring SAI from playing PPL’s sound recordings at upcoming events without securing a license.
This is not the first time a government body has found itself on the wrong side of intellectual property law. In Anand Patwardhan v. Director General, Directorate General of Doordarshan and Others, the Bombay High Court held Doordarshan, a government-owned public service broadcaster, guilty of infringing the plaintiff’s copyright in a documentary film titled “Waves of Revolution” by lifting various extracts from the suit film and inserting them in the impugned film broadcast.
Interestingly, after looking up the “Horn OK Please” event, one can see that its organizer is “So Delhi”, which doesn’t seem to be connected to the Sports Authority of India (at least as per their website).
This could contradict PPL’s argument that SAI was “organizing” the event and also makes one wonder why was “So Delhi” not impleaded as a party (as evident from the case details below).
Also, the general terms for booking a stadium under SAI states that it’s the organizer’s responsibility for obtaining a license (i.e. So Delhi in this case). This brings up another set of questions- what if “So Delhi” has already obtained a license from PPL? Shouldn’t the Court have inquired or raised an alarm about the actual organizer of “Horn OK Please” and whether they have obtained the necessary licenses? What will this mean for the scheduled events at SAI, especially in those cases where the organizers have already procured a license?