Music Broadcast Ltd. v. Tips Industries Ltd. & Ors.
In the Intellectual Property Appellate Board
S.R. 18/2020/CR/DEL
Before Justice Manmohan Singh, Chairman, Mr N. Surya Senthil, Technical Member, and Mr S.P. Chockalingam, Technical Member
Decided on September 18, 2020

Relevancy of the case: Deciding the fixed royalty fee for broadcasting songs through radio

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Copyright Act, 1957 (Sections 31D, 19A(2), 31C(5), 33A(2))
• The Copyright Rules, 2013 (Rule 31)
• The Trademark Act, 1999 (Sections 84, 92, 95).

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The applicants filed applications for fixing royalties to broadcast sound recordings through radio through a statutory license. A 2010 order passed by the Copyright Board set the royalty fee as 2%. This order was set to expire on September 30, 2020.
• The applicants have approached the Board to determine an interim rate of royalty fee.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The applicant’s counsel sought maintenance of the status quo of the 2010 order. They argued that the finding by the Copyright Board was still subsisting. If there is no maintenance of the status quo, the applicants will need to negotiate the terms of the license agreements with all the music providers in less than 2 weeks. Further, IPAB has broad powers to grant interim orders.
• The respondent’s counsel contended that the applicant paid close to 10% royalty on several music labels. The 2020 order was not binding on some of them. Hence, any interim order would not apply to them. Moreover, IPAB has no power to grant interim orders. The applicants have created unnecessary urgency. If they had filed applications earlier, they would not have suffered irreparable loss.

Opinion of the Bench

• The parties shall maintain the status quo. The newly constituted Copyright Board will fix the royalty rate.
• This interim arrangement will prevent the radio stations from being shut down.
• The bench noted the delay on the applicants’ part in filing these applications.

Final Decision

• The status quo of the 2010 order would continue with conditions. However, it would not apply to the parties not covered in the earlier orders.

Anjali Agrawal, an undergraduate student at the NALSAR University of Law, prepared this case summary during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in May/June 2022.