In M/s Leopold Café & Stores & Anr v Novex Communications Pvt Ltd, Bombay High Court recently held that as per the Copyright Act, 1957, an unregistered third party cannot carry on “the business of issuing or granting licences in its own name”.
[ihc-hide-content ihc_mb_type=”show” ihc_mb_who=”3″ ihc_mb_template=”2″ ]
Granting an injunction against Novex Communications, which had argued that it was granting licences and collecting licence fees on behalf of the owners of the copyrighted works, a single judge of the court said: “The minute the principal is undisclosed and the licence is issued and granted in the agent’s own name, the prohibition in section 33 comes into play.” Under section 33 only a registered copyright society can issue or grant licences.
Leopold Café had moved Bombay High Court after Novex, acting as the agent of copyright owners such as Yash Raj Films and Shemaroo Entertainment, demanded licence fees for sound recordings and public performance. Novex, which was not a registered copyright society, argued that it collected licence fees and granted licences under section 30 of the act, by which a copyright owner or its duly authorized agent can grant an interest in the right by licence. However, Leopold Café said that Novex demanded that licences be obtained from it directly and did not routinely disclose itself as an agent of its principals.
Ruling that Novex had not provided evidence that clearly and unequivocally showed that it was functioning as an agent and in no other capacity, the court said: “The mere mention of the licence being of the works of others does not sufficiently indicate any agency to take Novex out of the mischief forbidden by section 33 and into the permissive regime of section 30.”
[/ihc-hide-content]
The dispute digest is compiled by Bhasin & Co, Advocates, a corporate law firm based in New Delhi. The authors can be contacted at lbhasin@bhasinco.in or lbhasin@gmail.com. Readers should not act on the basis of this information without seeking professional legal advice.
