The case of Al Hamd Tradenation v. Phonographic Performance Limited is a significant copyright dispute adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi, addressing the issue of compulsory licensing under Section 31 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner, Al Hamd Tradenation, sought a compulsory license to use the respondent's sound recordings for a corporate event, alleging that the respondent, Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), demanded unreasonable and prohibitive license fees, effectively amounting to a refusal to license.

The case delves into the balance between the copyright owner's rights and the public's interest in accessing copyrighted works, raising critical questions about the applicability of compulsory licensing provisions, the reasonableness of tariff structures, and the legal status of PPL as a licensing entity. The judgment, delivered on May 13, 2025, by Justice Mini Pushkarna, underscores the court's authority to intervene when copyright owners impose arbitrary fees, reinforcing the statutory objective of ensuring equitable access to copyrighted works.

Detailed Factual Background
Al Hamd Tradenation, a Delhi-based event organizer, planned a corporate event for 50 persons on July 14, 2024, at Hotel Lutyens in Delhi. During the booking process, the hotel informed the petitioner that a license from PPL was required to play music at the event, with a quoted license fee of ₹49,500 for events hosting 1–150 persons. Upon checking PPL's website, the petitioner noted that the fee had increased to ₹55,440, effective April 29, 2024.

Deeming the fee excessive for a 50-person event, the petitioner, on July 2, 2024, offered PPL ₹16,500 (one-third of the original ₹49,500 fee), arguing that the reduced amount was proportionate to the event's scale. PPL rejected this offer on the same day, prompting the petitioner to reiterate its proposal on July 3, 2024. Meanwhile, on July 9, 2024, PPL filed a copyright infringement suit (CS(COMM) 564/2024) against the petitioner, alleging unauthorized use of its sound recordings. Aggrieved by PPL's high fees, which the petitioner deemed unreasonable, Al Hamd Tradenation filed the present petition seeking a compulsory license and determination of fair license rates.

PPL, a company claiming ownership of public performance rights in its repertoire of sound recordings through assignments, maintained that its tariff was reasonable and publicly available, applied uniformly to over 9,100 entities that had obtained 32,000 licenses since April 2023. The petitioner argued that PPL's fee structure, which charged the same amount for 1–150 attendees and did not account for the number of songs or event duration, was arbitrary and constituted a de facto refusal to license, justifying a compulsory license under the Copyright Act.

Detailed Procedural Background

• The petitioner filed the petition (C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 8/2024) under Section 31 of the Copyright Act, 1957, read with Rule 6 of the Copyright Rules, 2013, before the Delhi High Court, accompanied by applications I.A. 33181/2024 and I.A. 33182/2024.
• The petition sought a compulsory license to use PPL's sound recordings and a court-determined reasonable license fee.
• The matter was heard by Justice Mini Pushkarna, with arguments presented by Mr. Aditya Ganju for the petitioner and Mr. Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocate, for the respondent.
• The court noted a related legal development in Phonographic Performance Limited v. Azure Hospitality Private Limited (CS(COMM) 714/2022).
• The Single Judge upheld PPL's licensing authority on March 3, 2025.
• The Division Bench in Azure Hospitality Private Limited v. Phonographic Performance Limited (FAO(OS)(COMM) 41/2025), decided April 15, 2025, held that PPL must operate through RMPL, a registered copyright society.
• This ruling was stayed by the Supreme Court on April 21, 2025, in SLP(C) No. 10977/2025, with a hearing set for July 21, 2025.
• The Delhi High Court clarified its judgment was subject to the Supreme Court's final decision.

Issues Involved in the Case

• Whether PPL's license fee of ₹55,440 for a 50-person event constitutes an unreasonable demand, amounting to a refusal to license under Section 31(1)(a) of the Copyright Act?
• Whether the petitioner is entitled to a compulsory license for public performance of PPL's sound recordings under Section 31(1)(a), given that it is not a broadcasting organization?

Petitioner's Submissions (Al Hamd Tradenation)

• Argued that PPL's license fee was unreasonable and prohibitive, effectively withholding its sound recordings from the public.
• Claimed that arbitrary fees undermine public access to copyrighted works.
• Deemed the ₹55,440 fee excessive for a 50-person event, offering ₹16,500 instead, which was rejected by PPL.
• Relied on Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. to argue that unreasonable terms equate to refusal.
• Highlighted RMPL's flexible tariff compared to PPL's uniform and arbitrary structure.
• Asserted that PPL's market dominance allowed it to impose unfair licensing terms, warranting court intervention.

Respondent's Submissions (PPL)

• Defended its tariff as reasonable and uniformly applied, with over 9,100 entities licensed since April 2023.
• Denied withholding its repertoire, asserting licenses were freely available.
• Claimed that the petitioner's dispute over fee did not justify a compulsory license under Section 31(1)(a).
• Argued Section 31(1)(a) is limited to outright refusal, not fee reasonableness, and that Section 31(1)(b) is inapplicable to non-broadcasters.
• Asserted that sound recordings fall under broadcasting rights, not public performance, under the Act.
• Cited Pune Video Theaters Association v. Cinemaster to argue that public availability negates refusal claims.
• Maintained that PPL, as copyright owner through assignments, had the right to set its own rates.

Detailed Discussion on Judgments Cited by Parties

• Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. (2008) 13 SCC 30: Established that unreasonable license terms amount to refusal and justify compulsory licensing.
• Anand Bhushan v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9316: Held that courts can examine the reasonableness of tariffs under Section 33A, supporting the petitioner's case indirectly.
• Pune Video Theaters Association v. Cinemaster, 2001 SCC OnLine CB 1: Used by PPL to argue that availability of content negates refusal, though court found it inapplicable.
• Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., CS(COMM) 714/2022: Single Judge upheld PPL's licensing rights, later overturned by the Division Bench in FAO(OS)(COMM) 41/2025, which was stayed by the Supreme Court.
• Copinger and Skone James on Copyright (19th Ed., 2025): Explained compulsory licenses as tools to ensure public access to copyrighted works while ensuring fair compensation.

Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of Judge

• Justice Mini Pushkarna acknowledged the legal uncertainty due to pending Supreme Court proceedings but proceeded with caution.
• Rejected PPL's interpretation of Section 31(1)(a) as excluding sound recordings.
• Held that unreasonable terms amount to refusal, citing Entertainment Network.
• Found PPL's uniform tariff of ₹55,440 for events with 1–150 attendees unreasonable and disproportionate for a 50-person event.
• Recognized sound recordings as "works" under Section 2(y), making them subject to compulsory licensing under Section 31(1)(a).
• Invoked Section 33A and the Anand Bhushan case to support tariff review authority.
• Emphasized the need to avoid monopolistic pricing and ensure public access on fair terms.
• Held that Rule 8 allowed the court to determine compensation based on prevailing royalty standards.

Final Decision

• The court granted the petitioner a compulsory license due to PPL's unreasonable tariff.
• Directed both parties to file affidavits of evidence within eight weeks.
• Listed the matter for further directions on May 29, 2025.
• Clarified that its decision is subject to the Supreme Court's final ruling.

Law Settled in This Case

• Unreasonable license fees constitute a refusal to license under Section 31(1)(a), triggering compulsory licensing.
• The court can review and determine the reasonableness of licensing terms, even for sound recordings.

Case Citation: Al Hamd Tradenation Vs. Phonographic Performance Limited, May 13, 2025, C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 8/2024: 2025:DHC:3695 Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539