Copyright infringement: Supreme Court allows Puma to withdraw its case

SC said that the matter is still in its nascent stages and that an interim relief has already been given to the sports company

The Supreme Court allowed Puma Sports India Pvt Ltd to withdraw its case challenging copyright infringement complaints against it.

The sports company had filed a petition against an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in which the court had refused to quash a criminal complaint against it for copyright infringement.

Thereafter, the company challenged the order of the high court, which was heard on Wednesday by Justices J K Maheshwari and Hima Kohli.

The Supreme Court said that the matter was still in its nascent stages and that an interim relief has already been given to the sports company.

A Puma store at Elante Mall in Chandigarh was playing a song over which Phonographic Performance Limited(PPL) claimed ownership. PPL claimed the sound recordings were allegedly being played without obtaining a license from them.

A criminal complaint was then filed by PPL against PUMA India and its Directors Kumble Amit Prabhu and Abhishek Ganguly with the Crime Branch Chandigarh under Sections 51, 63, and 69 of the Copyrights Act 1957(copyright infringement).

Puma said in its statement to the police said that as per the proviso to Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957 only one society can be granted registration as a copyright society under the Act and that Puma possesses the valid licenses for all its stores issued by Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS), which is the registered copyright society in the country under the Copyright Act. The issue of registration of PPL is pending before the Delhi High Court.

Puma then challenged the said complaint before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in a petition. However, the High Court refused to interfere with the investigation at an early stage and did not quash the criminal complaint. The court said that Puma still had the liberty to approach the High Court if an FIR was registered. Officials of the company should not be harassed by the investigating agency, the court said.

“The court did not quash the complaint. However, the court passed an interim order saying Puma officials should not be harassed,” said Debmalya Banerjee and Samarjit Pattnaik, partners at Karanjawala and Co. After this, the matter went up to the apex court.
 

Given the observations of the top court, it was prayed by the counsel for Puma to withdraw the special leave petition, which was allowed by the bench. The matter was disposed of as withdrawn.