Madras High Court Rejects Composer's ₹26 Lakh Claim Over Alleged Post-Licence Use Of Zoho Ad Music

The Madras High Court on 4 November dismissed composer Arun Suradhan's suit seeking Rs. 26 lakh in damages from advertising agency MPF Studios and Zoho Corporation for allegedly continuing to use his musical composition in a Zoho advertisement after the licence expired.

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu dismissed the suit, holding that although the composer had established his copyright ownership and the agency's responsibility for ensuring compliance with the licensing restrictions, he had failed to substantiate the damages claimed.

On 3 November 2014, Suradhan entered into a Commercial Music Contract Agreement with MPF Studios to compose music for a Zoho advertisement. An amended agreement dated 23 February 2015 expanded the permitted use of the composition to radio channels but stipulated that the licence would remain valid only until 3 November 2015.

Suradhan alleged that the defendants continued using the composition after the licence expired, including on radio and YouTube. He claimed that the unauthorised use violated his copyright and the licensing agreement and had also deprived him of other commercial opportunities. He sought Rs. 26 lakh in damages for the alleged infringement and resulting financial loss.

MPF Studios denied infringement, contending that it had stopped using the composition after the agreed licence period. It argued that Suradhan's continued negotiations for renewal amounted to acquiescence and also disputed the basis of his damages claim.

The Court noted that MPF Studios' witness had acknowledged Suradhan's copyright ownership and admitted that the agency was responsible for ensuring that Zoho complied with the contractual restrictions.

It also rejected the contention that Suradhan had condoned the alleged infringement merely by engaging in negotiations for renewal of the licence.

However, the Bench found that Suradhan had failed to substantiate his claim for Rs. 26 lakh in damages. It particularly noted that the alleged offer from Dazu Entertainment, on which he relied to establish the loss of a commercial opportunity, had neither been pleaded in the plaint nor adequately proved through the witness examined.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the suit without costs.