IMPORTANT POINT
Infringement of copyright – Action contemplated under Section 60 of Copyright Act, 1957 shall not apply if person making threats, with due diligence, commences and prosecutes an action for infringement of copyright claimed by him.

JUDGMENT

The present Appeal is directed against the Order dated 05.12.2014 passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, CCH-10, in O.S.No.617/2013 on I.A.No.4 filed by defendants under Section 60 of Copyright Act, 1957 r/w Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby the plaint came to be rejected by allowing the application.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as per their original ranking before the Trial Court.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief for disposal of the present appeal are as under:—

Plaintiff filed the suit before the Trial Court under Section 60 of the Copyright Act r/w Section 26 further r/w Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the following prayer:—

“Wherefore, the plaintiff named above prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally as under:

(i) Declare that the infringement of the copyrights as alleged and illegally threatened by the defendants in the letters dated 30.11.2012, 19.12.2012 and 26.12.2012 and further the legal notices dated 30.12.2012 and 31.12.2012 are not an infringement of any of the alleged rights of the defendants and merely threatening in nature;

(ii) Further declare that the plaintiff company has not committed any infringement of any copyright, much less, an infringement as alleged and illegally threatened by the defendants;

(iii) Consequently restrain the defendants or their assigns, subordinates, agents or any other persons claiming any sort of right, title and interest under them or through them by way of permanent injunction, from continuing to cause illegal threats of the nature as threatened by them in their notices and legal notices dated 30.12.2012 and 31.12.2012 and further restrain them from interfering with the peaceful carrying on of the business by the plaintiff and causing damage and loss of reputation in the business circle of the plaintiff Company; and

(iv) Award costs of this suit to the plaintiff through out.

4. The claim of the plaintiff is based on the following factual aspects.

Plaintiff contended that it is a registered Company carrying on the business of hotel, restaurant, cafe, tavern, beer house, refreshment, room and lodging, house keeping etc., Plaintiff contended that defendant No.1 is also a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Mumbai and 2nd defendant is the Administrative Office of the 1st defendant and 3rd defendant is the Branch Office of the 1st defendant having their offices at Chennai and Bengaluru, respectively.

5. Plaintiff further contended that the defendants allegedly claiming themselves to be a Copyright Society registered under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, claim exclusive right in respect of musical and literary works of its alleged members, started making aggressive marketing about their Society and about the alleged powers granted to them by the Government of India as regards the business to be carried on by them. It is also contended that in order to muster funds for their company had issued and have been issuing threatening public notices in various newspapers about their alleged powers directing those establishments and outlets which allegedly play pre-recorded music in their establishments or outlets to obtain necessary licence from the defendant. The defendants also threatened the establishments like plaintiff that, they would get conducted the police raids on their establishments for alleged infringement of copy rights.

6. It is also the concern of the plaintiff that bare perusal of the contents of public notices shows that the defendants want to extort money not only from the plaintiff Company but also from all other establishments wherein alleged prerecorded music is being played.

7. It is further contended by the plaintiff that the defendants, without any sor