The Bombay High Court has granted ad-interim injunction in a copyright infringement suit, affirming that unauthorized public broadcasting of licensed sound recordings constitutes a prima facie violation under the Copyright Act, 1957. The order underscores the legal obligation of commercial entities to secure proper licensing, even for background playback in private premises.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The Plaintiff, Novex Communications Private Limited, is the exclusive assignee of sound recordings from multiple music labels under Assignment Agreements. It holds the exclusive right to license the public performance and broadcasting of these recordings under Section 30 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Defendant, Vivida Wellness Retreat Private Limited, operates a wellness retreat center where music is played for guests.
Key Facts
- The Plaintiff discovered unauthorized use of its copyrighted sound recordings on 3rd March, 2026 and 4th March, 2026 at the Defendant’s premises.
- The Plaintiff’s representative recorded the infringing broadcasts using a mobile handset and converted the recordings into a VCD/DVD, which was submitted as evidence with the Plaint.
- The infringing recordings included songs from the Plaintiff’s licensed repertoire.
- Two legal notices were sent to the Defendant on 12th March, 2026, demanding cessation of unauthorized use and production of licensing proof. No response was received.
- The Defendant was duly served with the suit and interim application, as confirmed by the Affidavit of Service on record.
- The Defendant did not appear before the Court, file any written statement, or contest the allegations.
Procedural History
- 03.03.2026: Infringing broadcasts detected at Defendant’s premises.
- 04.03.2026: Second instance of unauthorized playback recorded.
- 12.03.2026: Two legal notices issued to Defendant.
- 17.03.2026: Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 11378 of 2026 filed before the Bombay High Court.
- 28.03.2026: Interim Application (L) No. 11435 of 2026 filed seeking ad-interim injunction.
- 04.05.2026: Hearing before Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh.
Relief Sought
The Plaintiff sought an ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendant, its directors, employees, agents, and all persons acting on its behalf from:
- Publicly performing or communicating the Plaintiff’s copyrighted sound recordings.
- Using its premises or any premises under its control for such unauthorized playback.
- Otherwise infringing the Plaintiff’s copyright in any assigned work.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case of copyright infringement under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957, warranting an ad-interim injunction, in the absence of any defense from the Defendant.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Mr. Rashmin Khandekar, counsel for the Plaintiff, submitted that:
- The Assignment Agreements on record clearly establish the Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the sound recordings.
- The recordings of the infringing broadcasts, coupled with the Affidavit of the Plaintiff’s representative, constitute admissible evidence of unauthorized public performance.
- The Defendant’s failure to respond to two legal notices demonstrates awareness of the legal requirement to obtain a license.
- The Plaintiff’s right to license under Section 30 is statutory and enforceable.
- The balance of convenience favors the Plaintiff, as irreparable harm arises from unlicensed exploitation of copyrighted works.
For the Respondent/State
No appearance or submissions were made by the Defendant despite service of process. The Court proceeded ex parte.
The Court's Analysis
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh examined the pleadings, Assignment Agreements, and evidentiary material submitted with the Plaint. The Court noted that the Plaintiff’s rights were not merely claimed but documented through formal assignments. The recordings of the infringing broadcasts, though captured on a mobile device, were not challenged for authenticity or admissibility.
"The assignment agreements, which are placed on record prima facie demonstrate the Plaintiff's copyright in the sound recordings."
The Court emphasized that the Defendant’s silence after receiving two legal notices was significant. The notices, which explicitly referenced copyright law, placed the Defendant on notice that unlicensed playback constituted infringement. The Court held that this, combined with the audio evidence, established a prima facie case.
The Court further observed that the nature of the infringement - public performance in a commercial establishment - fell squarely within the scope of rights protected under Section 51(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act, which prohibits communication of a work to the public without license.
The Court rejected any notion that private or semi-private settings exempt commercial entities from licensing obligations. The Defendant’s premises, used for guest services, constituted a public space for the purposes of copyright law.
The Verdict
The Plaintiff succeeded. The Court granted ad-interim injunction as prayed in clause (a) of the prayer, restraining the Defendant, its directors, employees, agents, and all persons acting on its behalf from publicly performing or communicating the Plaintiff’s copyrighted sound recordings, or allowing its premises to be used for such purposes. The injunction remains in force until the next date of hearing on 22nd June, 2026.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Commercial Establishments Must Obtain Licenses for Background Music
- Any business playing copyrighted music - hotels, spas, restaurants, retail stores - must secure a license from a registered copyright society or rights holder.
- Relying on personal devices or unlicensed streaming platforms does not constitute lawful use.
- Legal notices sent to infringers create a strong evidentiary basis for establishing knowledge of infringement.
Prima Facie Case Can Be Established Without Formal Forensic Evidence
- Mobile recordings, if properly authenticated by affidavit, are admissible as evidence of infringement.
- Absence of defense from the defendant strengthens the plaintiff’s prima facie case.
- Courts will not require exhaustive technical analysis at the interim stage if the infringement is clear and documented.
Silence After Legal Notice Is Adverse to the Defendant
- Failure to respond to a copyright notice is treated as tacit admission of awareness.
- Practitioners should always serve notices before filing suits to strengthen the case for injunction.
- Courts view non-response as a factor in assessing the balance of convenience and irreparable harm.
