Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited vs RCN Digital (Raj Cable Network)

Manmohan, J

Present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyright, damages, rendition of accounts etc. The prayers made in

the plaint are reproduced hereinbelow:-

“(i) An order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their officers, servants, agents, partners and representatives and all

others acting for and on their behalf from either engaging in themselves or from authorizing, the recording, distributing, broadcasting,

public performance/communication to the public or in any other way exploiting the cinematograph films, sound recordings and/or literary

works (lyrics) and Musical works (musical composition) or other work or part thereof throughout India, that is owned by the plaintiff

including all works whereon the plaintiff has shown its copyright under Section 52A of the Copyright Act or doing any other act that would

lead to infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright;.

(ii) An order for rendition of accounts of profits directly or indirectly earned by the Defendant, their officers, servants, agents, partners and

representatives and all others acting for and on their behalf from their infringing activities and unlawful conduct throughout India and a

decree of the amount so found due to be passed in favour of the Plaintiff;

(iii) An order of delivery up to the Plaintiff or its authorized representative by the Defendant, their officers, servants, agents, partners and

representatives and all others acting for and on their behalf, of all infringing tapes, copies and negatives, etc bearing the copyrighted

materials of the Plaintiff;

(iv) An order requiring the Defendants their officers, servants, agents, partners and representatives and all others acting for and on their

behalf, to pay the Plaintiff damages to the tune of Rs. 25,01,800/- towards past damages and further grant future damages along with

pendent lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. till the time the decretal amount is paid;

(v) An order awarding the costs of the present suit to the Plaintiff.â€​

On 04th May, 2016, this Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The relevant portion of

the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“4. ….Accordingly, the defendant, its officers, servants, agents and representatives and all others acting for and on its behalf during

the pendency of the present suit are restrained from authorizing, recording, distributing, broadcasting, public performance /communication

to the public or in any other way exploiting the cinematograph films, sound recordings and/or literary works(lyrics) and Musical works

(musical composition) or other work or part thereof to its subscribers throughout India that is owned by the plaintiff including all works

whereon the plaintiff has shown its copyright under section 52A of the Copyright Act or doing any other act that would lead to infringement

of the plaintiffs’ copyright, through its Ground Cable Network till the next date of hearing.â€​

Since defendant did not enter appearance despite service, it was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 24th August, 2017 and the ex parte interim

injunction was confirmed till disposal of the suit.

It is the plaintiff's case that it is one of the largest and most reputed music companies in the country and is the owner of a large repertoire of

copyrighted works comprising cinematographic films, sound recordings etc. operating under the brand “T-SERIESâ€​.

It is further stated that plaintiffâ€s business also includes giving licences to various organizations such as Broadcasting Organizations, Television

Channels, FM Radio Stations, Multi-System Operators (MSO) and Cable TV Operators etc. for the use of its copyrighted works.

Mr. K.K. Khetan, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the defendant, RCN Digital (Raj Cable Network) is one of the largest ground cable

network provider based in Amravati, Maharashtra and is providing Cable Television services under the logos “RCN DIGITAL SONGSâ€,

“RCN DIGITAL MOVIES†and “RCN NEWS to various subscribers having operation throughout India including State of Maharashtra. He

further states that the defendant provides services such as Cable Advertising and Non Stop Entertainment wherein it make extensive use of Hindi

songs from commercial films, private albums and film extracts.

He states that in March, 2016 in the course of random monitoring of the defendantâ€s channels, the plaintiff company came to know about the

unauthorized and unlicensed use of its copyrighted works on the defendantâ€s cable television network. He further states that on coming to know of

the said infringement, the plaintiff sent a letter dated 15th March, 2016 and a legal notice dated 30th March, 2016 giving specific instances of

infringement of the plaintiffâ€s repertoire by the defendant and requesting it to obtain the requisite public performance license to make its broadcasts

legal. However, no reply was received.

The plaintiff has filed its evidence by way of two affidavits. One affidavit of PW-1 Mr. S.K. Dutta and another of PW-2 Mr. Mohit Sharma.

PW-1 has relied upon various decisions regarding the plaintiffâ€s copyright works as Ex. PW-1/3. PW-1 has further proved the copies of copyright

certificates illustrating that the plaintiff is the exclusive copyright owner of the aforementioned copyrighted works as Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/6. The

letter dated 15th March, 2016 and legal notice dated 30th March, 2016 have been proved as Ex.PW-1/7 (colly) and Ex, PW1/8 (colly). The plaintiffâ€

rate card on its website is proved as Ex. PW 1/9. PW-1 in his affidavit stated that “…That as per the information available, the Defendant

has forty thousand connections and the same was specifically stated in the legal notice addressed to the Defendant. As per the delivery

report, the letter dated 15.03.2016 and the legal notice dated 30.03.2016 were duly received by the Defendant. However, since the

Defendant chose not to reply to the letter dated 15.03.2016 and the legal notice dated 30.03.2016, an adverse inference regarding the

admission of the contents by the Defendant may be drawn as the same have gone unrebutted and uncontroverted by the Defendant... I say

that the subscription rate of the Plaintiff per account is charged at INR 18 per month. Therefore, I further state that the losses for the entire

period of two (2) months to the Plaintiff would amount as :-

40,000 (Subscriptions) x 18 (Per month license fee) x 2 (No of months) = INR 14,40,000/-

PW-2 has proved the CD/DVD recordings of the infringing broadcasts made on 3rd March, 2016 along with cue-sheets containing details of

infringing broadcasts such as time of recording, film/album belonging to the plaintiffâ€s repertoire, duration of recording and reading along with the

screenshots of the CD recordings as Ex. PW 2/1 and Ex. PW 2/2. Further, screenshots have been exhibited as Ex. PW 2/3 (colly).

Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and having perused the ex parte evidence as well as documents placed on record, this Court is of the

opinion that plaintiff has proved the facts stated in the plaint and has also exhibited the relevant documents in support of its case.

A bare perusal of the screenshot of the infringing recording (Ex. PW 2/3) shows the logo of the plaintiff “T-SERIESâ€. This proves that the

defendant was aware that the audio visual work broadcasted on their network belonged to the plaintiff. A perusal of the cue sheet also shows that the

defendant has amongst others infringed the sound recordings, cinematograph films and underlying literary and musical works belonging to plaintiffâ€s

repertoire of songs “Dheere-Dheere Se Meri Zindagi†from the film “Aashiquiâ€, the song “Suno Na Sangemarmar†from the film

“Youngistanâ€, the song “Soch Na Sake†from the film “Airliftâ€, the song “Chal Wanha Jaate Hai†from the film/Album “Chal

Wanha Jaate Haiâ€​, the song “Sanam Reâ€​ from the film “Sanam Reâ€​.

Since the plaintiffâ€s evidence has gone unrebutted, said evidence is accepted as true and correct. In the opinion of this Court, the defendant has

deliberately stayed away from this Courtâ€​s proceeding with a view to frustrate the plaintiffâ€​s claim for damages.

The said act is unjustified.

As the defendant has broadcast the plaintiffâ€s video songs without any license, this Court is further of the opinion that defendant has infringed the

plaintiffâ€​s rights under Sections 14(a)(iii), 14a(iv), 14(d)(iii) and 14(e)(iii) read with Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

As the plaintiff in his evidence has stated that the defendant had 40,000 subscriptions and the plaintiff used to charge licence fee of Rs.18/- per

connection per household per month plus applicable taxes, the plaintiff is held entitled to compensation to the extent of Rs.14,40,000/- (40,000

subscriptions x 2 months x Rs.18/-).

Consequently, present suit is decreed in accordance with prayer

(i) of the plaint as well as actual costs incurred by the plaintiff. The costs shall amongst others include the lawyerâ€s fees as well as the amount spent

on Court-fees. The plaintiff is also held entitled to compensation of Rs.14,40,000/-. Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet accordingly.