Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, J
VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED – Respondent
CS/23/2018 | CS-COM/93/2024 | CS/58/2024 | CS/155/2018 | CS-COM/131/2024 | CS/210/2018 | CS-COM/140/2024
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Mr. Arunabha Deb, Mr. Soumabho Ghose, Mr. Deepan Kumar Sarkar, Ms. Ashika Daga, Mr. Samriddha Sen, Mr. Ashish Bhan, Ms. Kirti Balasubramanian, Mr. Aayush Mitruka, Ms. Lisa Mishra
For the Respondents: Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Mr. Avijit Dey
For The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd: Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Mr. Soumya Ray Chowdhury, Mr. Himangshu Bagai, Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta, Mr. R. K. Ganguly, Ms. Susrea Mitra, Mr. S Biswas
Vodafone must obtain a license from IPRS and pay royalties for the use of musical and literary works in sound recordings, as the amendments to the Copyright Act protect authors' rights to revenue sharing.
Headnote:(A) Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 30, 30A, 33, 33A, 34 - Dispute regarding licensing and payment of royalties for music and literary works used in sound recordings - Vodafone required to obtain license from IPRS and pay royalties; agreements with Saregama do not confer legal authority for exploitation - Provisions of amended Act have established authors' rights to collect royalties despite copyright assignment - IPRS entitled to enforce rights under the law. (Paras 9, 10, 19, 25, 32)
(B) Copyright - Rights of authors regarding royalties - Amendments to the Act ensure protection of authors’ rights and prevent circumvention of royalty payments for commercial exploitation. (Paras 20, 22, 23, 25)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common theme in multiple suits (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court’s observations on agreements (Para 6 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. arguments on licensing and royalties (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. legislative changes impacting rights (Para 20 , 23 , 24 , 31) |
| 5. order dismissing applications and claims (Para 32) |
1. All these suits and applications have a common theme and by consent of the parties were heard analogously.
2. Vodafone India Ltd. (Vodafone) is carrying on business of providing telecommunication services. In providing such services, Vodafone also offers its customers Value Added Services (VAS) inter alia in the form of pre-recorded Caller Ring Back Tone (CRBT) whereby any caller may select songs for personal listening or as caller tunes.
3. Saregama India Ltd. (Saregama) is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the manufacture, sale and publication of sound recordings including digital downloads which include both film and non-film songs.
4. Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS) is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 and is a copyright society within the meaning of section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (the Act). IPRS is also a non-profit body primarily established to protect and enforce the rights, interests and privileges of its members comprising of authors of original works, music composers and publishers associated with such works. Briefly, IPRS accepts from an author or owner exclusive authorization to administer any rights particularly in relation to literary and musical works by issuing licences and charging licence fees with the ultimate aim of protecting the collective interests of authors of such underlying literary and musical works.
5. The crux of the issue in these proceedings is whether Vodafone is required to obtain a separate licence from IPRS and pay royalty before commercially exploiting the musical and literary works of its members as part of the sound recording.
6. For convenience, the particulars of the proceedings filed by the respective parties are set out hereinbelow:
a) CS 23 of 2018 has been filed by Vodafone. In this suit, Vodafone inter alia seeks a declaration that IPRS (the defendant no.2) is not entitled to any claim whatsoever including that on account of licence fees from Vodafone. In an application being GA 1 of 2018, seeking interim reliefs by an ex parte ad interim order dated 1 October 2018, both the defendants i.e. IPRS and Saregama had been restrained from raising any claim on Vodafone on account of royalty for the usage of VAS upon Vodafone depositing a sum of Rs.3.5 crores with the Registrar, Original Side, High Court at Calcutta. In terms of the said order, the above amount is still lying to the credit of the suit. GA 3 of 2019 is an application filed by IPRS seeking vacating of the order dated 1 October, 2018. By orders dated 7 July, 2022 and 15 December, 2022, copies of the Memorandum of Settlement and the New Agreement dated 20 September 2019 respectively executed by and between Vodafone and Saregama on the basis whereof a settlement had been arrived at between Vodafone and Saregama were directed to be brought on record.
b) In point of time, the next suit filed was CS No 155 of 2018 by Saregama inter alia seeking an injunction against Vodafone from exploiting the copyright in the sound recordings or allied copyright works in relation to VAS provided by Vodafone. In this suit, an application being GA 1 of 2018 has been filed seeking interim reliefs. GA 2 of 2018 has been filed by Vodafone inter alia seeking stay of the suit. GA 3 of 2018 has been filed by Vodafone seeking impleadment of IPRS in this suit. GA 5 of 2022 is an application filed by IPRS inter alia seeking impleadment in this suit and seeking restraint orders on the withdrawal of the sum deposited in terms of the order dated 1 October, 2018.
c) The third suit being CS 210 of 2018 has been instituted by IPRS inter alia seeking restraint orde
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
