PPL Can’t Issue Licenses For Sound Recordings In Its Repertoire Without Registering Itself As Copyright Society: Delhi High Court
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court held that Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), an entity that licenses music for public performance, cannot issue such licenses unless it is a registered copyright society under the Copyright Act, 1957. The case was brought before the court by the Azure Hospitality Private Limited, which challenged the legality of PPL’s practices, asserting that it did not have the necessary registration to operate as a copyright society.
PPL is an Indian collective rights management organization which licenses its copyrighted sound recordings to consumers to publicly perform the songs and for radio broadcast. The Bench was dealing with an appeal filed by Azure Hospitality Private Limited challenging a single judge order restraining it from using PPL’s copyrighted works in any of its outlets.
PPL owns the public performance rights of 400+ music labels, with more than 4 million international and domestic sound recordings. The list of sound recordings in which PPL has copyright is available on its website www.pplindia.org/songs, which provides express notice of PPL’s rights in the sound recordings to any user.
Azure Hospitality Private Limited (defendant no.1) runs around 86 restaurants including ‘Mamagoto’, ‘Dhaba’ and ‘Sly Granny’ which have several outlets throughout India.
Before the single judge, it was stated that when PPL’s representatives visited the restaurants being run by Azure Hospitality, they found that the restaurants were exploiting its sound recording without taking any license. PPL has then sent a cease and desist notice to Azure, but received no reply. PPL thus filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining Azure from infringing its copyright and other ancillary reliefs.
In appeal, the division bench ruled that issuance or grant of licenses for exploiting of works in respect of which a person claims copyright can only be done if such person is a registered copyright society or a member of a registered copyright society.
The court highlighted that under the Copyright Act, a “copyright society” is an entity authorized to collect royalties on behalf of copyright holders for the public performance of their works. This protection ensures that the owners of copyrighted material, such as composers, musicians, and lyricists, are compensated for the use of their works. Without this registration, PPL was found to have been operating outside the legal framework meant to govern copyright licensing, potentially leading to violations of the rights of creators and copyright owners.
The bench did not agree to the suggestion of Azure that a deposit should be directed at an interim stage, when the rival claims of the parties were yet to be finally adjudicated, to allow Azure to exploit the sound recordings from PPL’s repertoire without paying anything to the latter. The Court thus directed Azure to make payment to PPL as per the Tariff of RMPL, as displayed on its website, if it intends to play any of the sound recordings forming part of PPL’s repertoire in any of its outlets.
This ruling is significant as it reaffirms the need for proper authorization in the licensing of copyrighted content and emphasizes the importance of complying with the regulatory structure set up under Indian copyright law. The court’s decision aims to safeguard the rights of copyright holders and ensure that only authorized entities are allowed to collect and distribute royalties.
Read judgement here.
Supreme Court lays down two-pronged test to distinguish copyright works from industrial designs
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court provided clarity on the distinction between copyright and design rights in intellectual property law. The case revolved around the issue of whether a product design that had been registered under design law could also qualify for copyright protection. The court established a two-pronged test to differentiate the two areas of protection, noting that while both copyright and design law protect creative works, they are distinct in their application.
The division bench held and laid down the following critical points:
“(i) Whether the work in question is purely an ‘artistic work’ entitled to protection under the Copyright Act or whether it is a ‘design’ derived from such original artistic work and subjected to an industrial process based upon the language in Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act;
(ii) If such a work does not qualify for copyright protection, then the test of ‘functional utility’ will have to be applied so as to determine its dominant purpose.”
The first prong of the test requires that for copyright protection to apply, the work in question must be original and fixed in a tangible form. This means that the work should have a degree of creativity and should be the result of the creator’s effort. Design protection, on the other hand, protects the aesthetic or ornamental aspects of a product’s shape or configuration and does not necessarily require originality in the same sense as copyright. The second prong of the test focuses on the visual appearance of the work. A design right is granted to the visual features of a product, while copyright law is concerned with the expression of ideas, rather than just the appearance.
The Court was ruling on appeals arising out of a copyright infringement suit filed by Inox India against Cryogas Equipment and LNG Express India over alleged unauthorised use of proprietary engineering drawings and literary descriptions for manufacturing cryogenic semi-trailers.
At the core of the dispute was Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which bars copyright protection for any design capable of registration under the Designs Act if it has been reproduced more than fifty times by an industrial process without registration.
While the commercial court had rejected Inox’s suit on this ground, the Gujarat High Court later restored it, observing that the drawings in question might not qualify as “designs” under the statute. Cryogas and LNG Express then appealed before the Supreme Court.
Recognising the ambiguity in the existing legal framework, the Supreme Court noted that there was a “penumbra” in the law which created “an intrinsic disagreement” in how artistic works and industrial designs were to be treated.
The Court clarified that even if a work has been used for commercial purposes, that does not immediately strip it of copyright protection. The Court observed that courts across jurisdictions, including India, consistently apply the “functional utility” test to distinguish a design from an artistic work.
The judgment drew on comparative jurisprudence from the United States — particularly the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Star Athletica LLC v. Varsity Brands Inc — and also referred to international treaties like TRIPS and the Berne Convention to highlight the lack of a harmonised global approach.
Summing up its analysis, the Court stated that the overlap between copyright and design protection must be resolved with care, emphasising the need to balance rights of creators with public interest.
The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the Gujarat High Court’s decision to restore the suit, finding that the commercial court had overstepped by dismissing the case at the preliminary stage under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
The apex court thus directed the commercial court to decide Inox’s interim injunction plea within two months. Furthermore, the commercial court must complete full trial within one year, after considering the legal tests laid down by the Supreme Court.
This ruling is crucial in the context of the overlapping fields of design and copyright law, especially as industries like fashion, technology, and product design often face legal questions over what qualifies for protection under each regime. By clarifying these distinctions, the Supreme Court has provided much-needed guidance for both creators and courts in determining whether a work is eligible for copyright or design protection.
Read judgement here.
Delhi High Court Quashes Trademark Registration Of ‘Captain Blue’ In Plea By Producer Of ‘Captain Morgan’ Rum
The Delhi High Court recently struck down the trademark “Captain Blue,” finding it too similar to the iconic “Captain Morgan” brand owned by Diageo. Diageo, a multinational alcohol producer, had challenged the registration of “Captain Blue” on the grounds of potential consumer confusion, arguing that both trademarks were associated with alcoholic beverages, specifically rum, and could lead to unfair competition.
Diageo Scotland Limited (appellant) is a part of the Diageo Group which holds a vast and diverse portfolio of spirit brands. Its flagship brand includes ‘Captain Morgan’ and sub-brands such as ‘Captain Morgan Gold’, ‘Captain Morgan White Rum’ and ‘Captain Morgan Dark Rum’
Diageo stated that the ‘Captain’ brand has been continuously and extensively used in India since 2006. It stated that for 2023, Captain Morgan brand had sales of approximately USD 6.48 million in India.
Diageo submitted that one Prachi Verma (respondent no. 1) filed a trademark application for the mark ‘Captain Blue’ in Class 33 category for alcoholic beverages, on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis. Diageo filed an opposition to the trademark application on the grounds of deceptive similarity, lack of bona fide adoption and likelihood of causing confusion among the public.
However, the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks rejected the opposition, noting that the impugned mark when compared as a whole was distinctive from that of Diageo. Diageo thus files the present appeal against the Assistant Registrar’s order.
The court agreed with Diageo’s argument, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing trademarks in the crowded marketplace for alcoholic products. Given the long-standing and widespread recognition of the “Captain Morgan” brand, the court found that allowing the “Captain Blue” trademark to remain registered could result in significant confusion among consumers, leading them to believe that the two products were related or shared the same source.
On the respondent’s mark, the Court observed that merely adding ‘Blue’ for very similar goods/alcoholic beverages is not sufficient evidence for it to be distinct. It stated that there is the likelihood that the impugned mark would be considered as another variant of Diageo. It observed that the ‘Captain’ has become a source-identifying feature of Diageo’s products and the impugned product would cause confusion among the traders and public that it belongs to the appellant.
The Court further noted the respondent filed the application on a proposed to be used basis and did not file any evidence showing actual use, commercial intent or showing cause of bona fide adoption. It noted that the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks did not take these aspects into considerations in its order.
The Court thus held that the registration granted to the impugned mark was liable to be set aside. It directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove ‘Captain Blue’ from its registry.
This judgment underscores the importance of protecting well-known trademarks from imitation, particularly in cases where the reputation of the original mark is at risk of being diluted. The ruling aligns with established principles in trademark law, which prioritize consumer protection and the prevention of unfair competition. It also highlights the court’s willingness to take action against deceptive similarity in cases involving globally recognized brands.
Read judgement here.
“Disparaging on the face of it:” Delhi High Court in sunscreen ad war between Derma Co and Lakme
Honasa Consumer took Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) to the Delhi High Court over an allegedly disparaging Lakme ad campaign against its sunscreen Derma Co.
Honasa Consumer Ltd, the parent of brands like Mamaearth and The Derma Co., filed a lawsuit against Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL), alleging that a recent Lakme sunscreen campaign undermines the credibility of its own product. HUL, in turn, has hit back with a countersuit, escalating the spat into a full-blown legal battle.
At the heart of the dispute is a new HUL campaign for Lakme’s SPF 50 sunscreen, launched over the weekend with the hashtag #LakmēSPF50Truth100. The ad asserts that certain “online bestseller sunscreens” claiming SPF 50 actually offer far lower protection—closer to SPF 20. While it doesn’t name any brand, the video contrasts several yellow and orange bottles with Lakme’s packaging and cites in-vivo SPF testing, a clinical method used to assess sun protection.
Honasa, whose Derma Co. sunscreen also advertises SPF 50 and highlights its own in-vivo testing, took immediate offense. At a hearing in the Delhi high court, Honasa, accused HUL of launching a calculated attack against Derma Co.’s reputation, citing similarities in the packaging shown in the Lakme ad.
Justice Amit Bansal, presiding over the case, remarked that the Lakme ad appeared “disparaging” on the face of it, and directed HUL’s counsel to relay the court’s concerns to the company.
Meanwhile, HUL has filed a lawsuit against Honasa Consumer in Bombay high court alleging disparagement of its brand by Honasa.
CCI fines UFO Moviez, Qube Cinema ₹2.69 crore for anti-competitive practices
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has imposed a cumulative penalty of ₹2.69 crore on UFO Moviez, its subsidiary Scrabble Digital, and Qube Cinema Technologies for indulging in anti-competitive practices that adversely affected competition in India’s digital cinema exhibition market.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) passed an order dated 16.04.2025 under the provisions of Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act) imposing monetary and non-monetary sanctions on UFO Moviez India Pvt. (UFO Moviez), Scrabble Digital Ltd. and Qube Cinema Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Qube), for contravention of provisions of Section 3(4) of the Act, resulting in tie-in arrangement, exclusive supply agreement and refusal to deal.
In this matter, the Commission determined that UFO Moviez and Qube were significant players in the relevant market for the supply of Digital Cinema Initiatives-Compliant Digital Cinema Equipment (DCI-Compliant DCE) on lease/rent to Cinema Theatre Owners (CTOs) in India. The Commission found that UFO Moviez and Qube, through imposition of restrictions on supply of content in lease agreements entered into with CTOs, created barriers for players engaged in the provision of Post-Production Processing (PPP) services as well as blocked a significant portion of CTOs having DCI-Compliant DCEs from being served by any other player. The Commission held UFO Moviez (along with its subsidiary Scrabble Digital Ltd.) and Qube in contravention of provisions of Section 3(4) of the Act.
The Commission further held that the existing lease agreements with CTOs shall stand modified such that they do not impose restrictions on supply of content from parties other than UFO Moviez (and its affiliates) and Qube. The Commission, after considering nature and gravity of the contravention along with assessment of mitigating and aggravating factors, also imposed monetary penalty on UFO Moviez (along with its subsidiary Scrabble Digital Ltd.) and Qube, amounting to Rs. 104.03 Lakh and Rs. 165.8 Lakh, respectively.
Read order here.
Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Footwear Seller From Using Harley Davidson’s ‘Eagle Logo’, Imposes ₹5L Costs
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of the American company, Harley-Davidson LLC, against trademark and copyright infringement by a seller of footwear using the ‘Eagle’ logo similar to that of Harley-Davidson.
Harley-Davidson stated that due to continuous and extensive use since the 1930s, the distinctive features, trade dress, get-up, layout, and placement of its Eagle Logo has become a source identifier of its products.
Harley-Davidson submitted that the defendant was supplying and selling footwear under the brand name ‘Rontex’ bearing an Eagle logo, which is deceptively similar to its logo. It stated that the defendant is advertising and conducting business with impugned products through third-party platforms such as Amazon and Flipkart.
On 5 September 2023, the Local Commissioner visited the premises of the defendant and found a total of 640 pairs of shoes bearing the infringing marks and logos. On 25 September 2023, the Court had granted an interim injunction in against the defendant, restraining them from stocking, supplying, selling, or marketing in any manner including online sale or dealing in footwear or any other products under the impugned mark/logo.
Justice Amit Bansal proceeded with a summary judgment as no written statement was filed by the defendant. Comparing the two logos, the Court observed that the impugned logo is almost identical to Harley-Davidson’s Eagle logo. It noted that the impugned logo is structurally and visually similar to that of Harley-Davidson.
It noted that the defendant not only copied that eagle but also copied the outline of bar and shield logo of Harley-Davidson. It stated that the defendant merely replaced the words ‘Harley-Davidson Clothes’ with ‘Sports Casual’ while adopting the impugned mark. It stated that there is a likelihood that the consumers would associate the impugned products with that of Harley-Davidson. It observed that the defendant took an unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Harley-Davidson’s trademarks/artistic works.
The Court was thus of the view that a case of trademark and copyright infringement was made out.
It issued a permanent injunction in favour of Harley-Davidson, restraining the defendant from dealing with the impugned products. It further imposed costs and damages of Rs. 5 lakh on the defendant, to be paid to Harley-Davidson.
Read order here.
Royal Challengers Bengaluru Sues Uber Over ‘Disparaging’ Ad Featuring Travis Head, Delhi HC Reserves Order On Interim Injunction Plea
Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) has taken legal action against Uber for airing an advertisement featuring cricketer Travis Head, which RCB claims disparaged its brand. The advertisement, which showed Head spray-painting a negative reference to RCB on a stadium sign, was alleged to have undermined RCB’s reputation and created a misleading narrative about the team.
RCB’s legal team argued that the ad used a deceptive variant of their trademark, making it commercially advantageous to Uber by associating its services with a negative image of RCB. Uber, on the other hand, contended that the ad was merely intended as humorous promotional content and not to disparage RCB.
The Delhi High Court has reserved its judgment on RCB’s plea for an interim injunction. The court’s decision will be crucial in determining whether the advertisement crosses the line between fair commercial speech and disparagement. The case raises important questions about the boundaries of free speech in advertising and the extent to which businesses can use a competitor’s trademark or brand identity in a negative light for promotional purposes.
Case Title: ROYAL CHALLENGERS SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS.; CS(COMM) 345 / 2025.
Madras High Court Closes Kunal Kamra’s Plea For Transit Anticipatory Bail After Bombay HC’s Order For Interim Protection From Arrest
The Madras High Court on April 17 has disposed of the transit anticipatory bail petition filed by comedian Kunal Kamra in connection with the FIR lodged against him in Mumbai over his alleged remarks against Maharashtra Deputy CM Eknath Shinde.
Justice Sunder Mohan closed his petition after Kamra’s Advocate informed the court that the Bombay High Court had granted interim protection from arrest to the comedian on April 16 while reserving orders in his plea for quashing the FIRs registered against him. In the previous hearing, the Madras high court had extended the interim anticipatory bail granted to him till April 17.
Kamra had approached the Madras High Court as he is a permanent resident of Villupuram town in Tamil Nadu. During the earlier hearings, he had informed the court that he had been receiving death threats and though he had informed the authorities about this, no action had been taken. He had thus requested the court to grant him protection till he could approach the concerned courts. The court, being satisfied of his submission, had granted him interim anticipatory bail on March 28, which was later extended on April 7th. In the meanwhile, Kamra had approached the Bombay High Court to quash the FIR registered against him by the Maharashtra Police.
Will Remove Photo, Name Of BJP Spokesperson Nalin Kohli From ‘Sting Operation’ Video: Dainik Bhaskar To Delhi High Court In Defamation Suit
n a defamation suit filed by BJP spokesperson Nalin Kohli, Dainik Bhaskar agreed to remove Kohli’s photo and name from a sting operation video that had been published on its platform. The video, which linked Kohli to fake news operations, was accused of damaging his reputation and making unsubstantiated claims about his involvement in political manipulation.
Dainik Bhaskar, in response to Kohli’s complaint, agreed to publish a corrigendum and ensure that the defamatory content was removed from their website and social media handles. The court disposed of the suit against the newspaper in light of this agreement.
