Published On: January 24th 2026
Authored By: Tannu Mishra
GJ Advani Law College Mumbai
- CASE TITLE: Tips Industries Ltd vs Wynk Ltd. And Anr
- CITATION: AIRONLINE 2019 BOM 1452
- COURT: Bombay High Court
- BENCH: S.J. Kathawalla
- DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 23rd April, 2019
- RELEVANT STATUTES: Section 14(1)(e), Section 31D of The Copyright Act, 1957
BRIEF FACTS
Tips Industries Ltd., the plaintiff, is a notable and distinguished music label owning copyright in over 25,000 sound recordings. The defendant, Airtel, owned Wynk Ltd., which operates a digital music streaming and downloads platform. Initially, Wynk had access to Tips’ repertoire through a license agreement via Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL), which expired on 31 August 2016 and was briefly extended until 31 October 2016. Subsequent negotiations for renewal failed, and Tips demanded the removal of its contents from Wynk’s platform. Despite this, Wynk continued to stream and offer downloads of Tips’ music, asserting entitlement under Section 31-D, which offers for statutory licensing to broadcasting organizations. Tips disputed this claim by presenting an argument that Wynk’s services, particularly downloads and on-demand streaming, did not qualify as broadcasting. Consequently, Tips, being the plaintiff, filed a suit of copyright infringement in the Bombay High Court seeking an injunction against the unauthorized use of its sound recordings by Wynk, the defendant.
ISSUES INVOLVED
- Whether the Defendants are infringing the Plaintiff’s copyright in the Plaintiff’s Repertoire as provided for in Section 14(1)(e) of the Act?
- Whether the use of the Plaintiff’s Repertoire by the Defendants’ customers is considered “fair use” under Section 52(1)(a)(i) of the Act?
- Whether the storage of sound recordings upon the Defendants’ customers’ devices can be considered transient or incidental to the services provided by the Defendants, as provided in Section 52(1)(b) of the Act?
- Whether the Defendants can invoke Section 31-D of the Act to exercise a Statutory License in respect of their download/purchase business?
- Whether the Defendants can invoke Section 31-D of the Act to exercise a Statutory License in respect of the Plaintiff’s Repertoire, for internet broadcasting?
ARGUMENTS
PLAINTIFF
In this case, the plaintiff claimed to be the sole owner of copyright in sound recordings that were part of its repertoire and that the defendants had violated its rights under Section 14(1)(e) of the Copyright Act, 1957, by providing download and streaming services without permission. The plaintiff further implied that the statutory licensing provision contained in Section 31-D, which provides the ability to exploit sound recordings in radio and television broadcasts commercially, cannot be read to permit internet-based streaming or download services based on the Government’s Office Memorandum of 2016, which suggested that the statutory licensing was broadened when it, in fact, has no binding legal effect on copyright jurisprudence. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendants’ claims of fair dealing under Section 52(1)(a)(i) and transient storage under Section 52(1)(b) were misplaced, as their exploitation was for commercial purposes and involved the download being permanent and not incidental. When the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had previously operated under a licensing agreement but continued to exploit the works after the renewable agreement had expired, the plaintiff argued that it had intentionally infringed copyright and was causing irreparable harm to the commercial entity, justifying the seeking of an injunction with monetary relief.
DEFENDANT
The defendant argued that their services did not constitute copyright infringement, as streaming and enabling downloads were covered by statutory licensing under Section 31-D of the Copyright Act, 1957. They claimed that, although this provision was framed with radio and TV in mind, it should be interpreted in light of technological advancements as if it included the internet in broadcasting, and that the Government of India’s Office Memorandum, 2016, bolstered their position. Furthermore, the defendant argued that the storage of songs on the user’s device was only transient or incidental storage during streaming or downloading, according to Section 52(1)(b), and that personal use of the repertoire by end-users fell under fair dealing according to Section 52(1)(a)(i). The defendant reiterated that they planned to pay royalties at a rate from the proper authority and that their actions were compliant with the statutory frameworks. Lastly, the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s main interest was money and therefore the plaintiff did not need an injunction since any claimed losses would be compensated by royalties or damages.
JUDGEMENT
In this case, the Bombay High Court ruled that Section 31D is only applicable to broadcasting on radio and television and does not apply to digital streaming platforms. The bench reached this judgment by adopting the literal rule of interpretation of statutes as literally construing Section 31D, along with consideration of the legislative record of the 2012 Amendment, as well as the rules promulgated under the Act. The Court also noted that Section 31D records the legislature’s awareness regarding the prediction of digital advancements (such as streaming and downloading), and that the omission of internet broadcasting as a type of broadcasting was intentional. In addition to this, the Honorable Court also highlighted that interpreting digital streaming services under the scope of Section 31-D of the act would effectively defeat the legislature’s statutory intent.
The bench further held that Wynk’s assertion of “fair use” was also not valid, and qualified that while “fair use” might extend to individual users, it would not extend to an entity that is engaging in a commercial service. Wynk’s actions were those of selling (and commercially renting) sound recordings (thus including the plaintiff’s repertoire) and were found not to be for the private use of Wynk. As such, the defendant’s act was found to be an infringement of the plaintiff’s exclusive rights under section 14(1)(e), allowing copyright holders the sole right to sell and otherwise communicate their recordings to the public.
The Court also rejected Wynk’s reliance on a memorandum issued by a government department which, it was said, applies Section 31D to internet broadcasting. The Court concluded that the memorandum did not have statutory authority and could not override the statutory framework. Thus, the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s repertoire without permission was held to be unlawful, and the Court granted relief in favor of the plaintiff.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The ratio decidendi or the rationale behind delivering this judgement by the Court in the present case of Tips Industries Ltd. vs. Wynk Ltd. is primarily in the Court’s interpretation of Section 31D of the Act, and its application to internet broadcasting. The Bombay High Court ruled that Section 31D is an exception to the exclusive rights of copyright owners and must be narrowly and literally construed. The Court arrived at its judgment by using the literal rule of statutory interpretation, wherein it plainly read the statute and examined the legislative background, with the Court noting that the provision applied only to traditional broadcasters, namely radio and television, and not to internet streaming services. The court distinguished traditional FM broadcasting, where users have no control over what plays from online streaming services like Wynk, Gaana, Spotify, etc., which allows users to select what they wish to hear. This is why the bench emphasized that the key point of distinction lies in user control, transforming digital streaming platforms into interactive services beyond the scope of traditional broadcasting.
The Court also upheld that the legislative authority was indeed aware of the existence of digital technologies, including streaming and downloading service platforms, at the time of the 2012 Amendment, and thus, by excluding internet broadcasting from the statutes’ language, the legislature effectively proceeded with intent. The Court also rejected Wynk’s defense of fair use, stating that Wynk could not equate commercial exploitation of copyrighted sound recordings through subscription-only services to private use. Ultimately, the judgment clarified that internet broadcasting service providers are not entitled to statutory licensing under Section 31D and are required to obtain prior authorization from copyright owners, upholding the primacy of exclusive rights in a digital context.
FINAL DECISION
The Bombay High Court gave the verdict in this case in favor of the plaintiff, wherein the Court upheld the copyright owner’s exclusive rights under Section 14(1)(e) but rejected any attempt to extend statutory licensing under Section 31D to internet broadcasting business platforms. Consequently, the Court also established a precedent that digital streaming services such as Wynk will be obliged to secure a direct license from the copyright holder. The Court, while doing so, also reaffirmed that statutory licensing provisions shall apply only to mainstream or traditional broadcasters like radio and television, and not to digital streaming platforms.
IMPACTS OF THE JUDGMENT
The judgment in the Tips Industries Ltd. vs. Wynk Ltd. case was a significant ruling that reshaped the digital copyright landscape in India by stating that internet streaming platforms are not entitled to statutory licensing under Section 31D of the Copyright Act, highlighting the scope of the section. The Court reaffirmed that such licensing was limited to traditional broadcasting, such as radio and television, and any expansion to digital platforms would be beyond the intention of the legislature. By supporting the exclusive rights of copyright holders under Section 14(1)(e) of the Copyright Act, and rejecting the good faith exceptions to user defenses in a commercial situation, the ruling established the legal rights of the copyright’s holders in relation to music labels and created leverage to negotiate agreements with streaming services, which will ultimately change the fabric of digital media platforms in India.
